Morris Louis

John Elderfield

Author
Elderfield, John

Date

1986

Publisher
The Museum of Modern Art: Distributed
by New York Graphic Society Books,
Little, Brown and Co.

ISBN
0870704184, 0870704192

Exhibition URL
www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1998

The Museum of Modern Art's exhibition history—

from our founding in 1929 to the present—is
available online. It includes exhibition catalogues,
primary documents, installation views, and an
index of participating artists.

MoMA © 2017 The Museum of Modern Art

 MORRIS
LOUIS
THEMUSEUM
OFMODERN
ART
NEWYORK
192pages,46 colorplates, 51black-and-white
illustrations $40.00

MORRIS
LOUIS
BYJOHNELDERFIELD

INNINEastonishingly prolificyears,untilhisdeathat age49in

1962,MorrisLouis created a unique late form of Abstract
Expressionism,then radicallytransformedit in a way that
preparedfor the reductiveart of the 1960s.Theresplendently
beautifulcanvasesof his matureperiodare as compellingand
as radical in their abstractionas any workin Americanart.
"Atthe heightof hispowers,"writesJohnElderfield,Louis'sart
attained a sense of "deliverancethrough the senses . . .
the conditiontowardwhichthe best of modernpaintinghas
aspired."
A solitary,intenselyself-criticalman,Louishad bythe early
1950sarrivedat modestsuccessas a painter and teacher in
Washington, D.C.ThroughhisfriendshipswithpainterKenneth
Nolandand criticClementGreenberghe cameto knowthe art
of JacksonPollockand HelenFrankenthaler,whoseinfluence
on his workingmethodsand,indeed,on hisveryconceptionof
paintingwas profound.In 1954he began, in the words of
Greenberg,"to think, feel, and conceivealmostexclusively in
terms of opencolor."
In this bookElderfieldcloselyanalyzesLouis'smajorseries:
the twogroupsoflyricalVeilsof1954and1958-59,the dramatic
pictorialsolutionof the Unfurledsof 1960-61,and the color-
isticallyrefined Stripes of 1961-62,as well as transitional
pictures.Louisproducedeffectsofincredibledelicacy,subtlety,
and controlin an enormouscolorrangeby pouringpaint onto
canvaslooselytacked to a stretcher.Elderfielddiscussesthe
characterand sourcesofthe techniqueas wellas the structure
and implicitcontentof Louis'sart. Bythe end of his life,Louis
hadobtainedrecognition,andhisworkwasregularlyexhibited;
but hundredsof his canvaseswerestoredin rolls,and mostof
them the artist himselfneversawstretchedand hung.Elder-
fieldaddressesthe issuesthis has raisedconcerningthe dating
of his paintings,their relationshipsto each other, even the
properorientationandcroppingofthe works.Adetailedappen
dixtreats the moretechnicalquestionsinvolved,includingthe
care and conservationof Louis'sart.
The forty-sixpaintingsreproducedin color in this book
represent all the importantseries in Louis'soeuvre.These
examples,togetherwithreferencephotographsofotherworks,
includingtransitionalpicturesandcomparativematerial,trace
5 51.
 MORRIS
LOUIS
THEMUSEUM
OFMODERN
ART
NEWYORK

JOHN
ELDERFIELD

DISTRIBUTED
BYNEWYORKGRAPHICSOCIETYBOOKS
LITTLE,BROWNANDCOMPANY,
BOSTON
f\rc AA.
fAtfKA
\HV\
Published on the occasion of
an exhibition at
The Museumof ModernArt, NewYork
October 6, 1986-January 4, 1987
The Fort WorthArt Museum
Fort Worth,Texas
February 15—
April 12, 1987
Hirshhorn Museumand Sculpture Garden
SmithsonianInstitution
Washington,D.C.
May20-July 26, 1987

The exhibition,Morris Louis, has been made possible

by the generous support
of GFI/KnollInternational Foundation.
The publication has been supported
by a generous grant
from Marcella Louis Brenner.

Copyright© 1986The Museumof ModernArt

All rights reserved
Library of CongressCatalogCard Number 86-61413
ClothboundISBN0-87070-418-4
Paperbound ISBN0-87070-419-2
Edited by Harriet SchoenholzBee
Designedby Carl Laanes
Production by Tim McDonoughand Daniel Frank
Typeset by ThifontTypographers,Inc., Hicksville,New York
Colorseparations by L.S. Graphics, Inc., NewYork
Printed and bound by ArnoldoMondadori,Verona
Distributed outside the United States and Canada
by Thames and Hudson Ltd., London

The Museumof ModernArt

11West 53 Street
NewYork,NewYork10019
Printed in Italy

The Museum of Modern Art Library

CONTENTS PREFACE 7

CHAPTERONE 9
Louis'searly career; friendship with Noland and
introduction to Abstract Expressionism;
influence of Greenberg;1954Veils;repudiated
pictures of 1955-57 and the New YorkSchool

CHAPTERTWO 25
Technicalinnovationand modern art; Impressionism,
Cubism,and Pollock'sallover style; indebtedness
to Pollockand Frankenthaler; painting medium;
orientation of 1954Veils;working methods

CHAPTERTHREE 43
Relationshipof Veilsto pre-modern artistic
traditions; 1958-59Veils;Florals, Alephs, and
other transitional pictures of 1959-60

CHAPTERFOUR 61
Conception,development,and Symbolist
associations of Unfurledsof 1960-61;conception
and development of Stripes of 1961-62

PLATES 83

CHRONOLOGY177

APPENDIX 179
Exhibitionhistory; posthumousreputation;
cropping and orientation; methods and
materials; conservation

NOTESTOTHETEXT 187

SELECTEDBIBLIOGRAPHY189

TRUSTEESOF THEMUSEUMOF MODERNART 192

PHOTOGRAPH
CREDITS 192
 wwn-f* -'-fSSSfiOBBEtSGSSStott?
—
9B0HH

LENDERSTOTHE EXHIBITION

Mr.and Mrs. Harry W Anderson

Marcella Louis Brenner
The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Collection
Mr.and Mrs. Marshall Cogan
Lois and Georgesde Menil
WilliamS. Ehrlich
Helen Frankenthaler
Mr.and Mrs. Graham Gund
Stephen Hahn
Dr. and Mrs. Charles Hendrickson
Mr.and Mrs. James J. Lebron
Sally Lilienthal
Mr.and Mrs. DavidMirvish
Mrs. John D. Murchison
Mr.and Mrs. I. M. Pei
Mr.and Mrs.Arthur Rock
Robert A. Rowan
Mr.and Mrs. Eugene M. Schwartz
Sylviaand Joe Slifka
Mr.and Mrs. ThomasWeisel
Mr.and Mrs. BagleyWright
Donaldand Barbara Zucker
Six collectors who wish to remain anonymous

Ulster Museum,Belfast
Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,Nationalgalerie,Berlin
The FoggArt Museum,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Mass.
Des MoinesArt Center, Des Moines
The Museumof Fine Arts, Houston
Sheldon MemorialArt Gallery,Universityof Nebraska, Lincoln
The SolomonR. GuggenheimMuseum,NewYork
The Museumof ModernArt, NewYork
The Lannan Foundation
Philadelphia Museumof Art, Philadelphia
Hirshhorn Museumand Sculpture Garden, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington,D.C.
National Galleryof Art, Washington,D.C.

—e- -- ^^-- __
 7

PREFACE THISPUBLICATION accompaniesan exhibitionof MorrisLouis'spaintingsat The Museumof

ModernArt, NewYork,subsequentlyshownat The FortWorthArt Museum,Fort Worth,Texas,
and the HirshhornMuseumand SculptureGarden,SmithsonianInstitution,Washington, D.C.Its
forty-sixcolorplatesillustratethe contentsof the exhibition,whichis the first in NewYork(and
in FortWorthand Washington) to representin depth all the importantseriesin Louis'soeuvre:
the Veilsof 1954and 1958-59,the Unfurledsof 1960-61,and the Stripesof 1961-62.In addition,
certainmajortransitionalpicturesof 1959-60are represented.Pictureshavebeenchosenabove
all on the basis of qualityand with the limits of the Museum'sgalleryspace in mind.In this
publication,however,virtuallyeverytype of paintingby Louisis discussed.Its aim has been to
providea historicaloverviewof Louis'sdevelopmentand to elucidatethe evaluationsthat have
informedthe selectionof the exhibition.
As directorof the exhibitionand authorof this publication,I wishto thank MarcellaLouis
Brenner,the artist'swidow,for her supportand encouragementof myworkon Louisovermany
years,and for her generousgrant towardthe productionof this publication.I also owea great
debt of gratitudeto ClementGreenberg,the first supporterof Louis'sart. Additionally, Andre
Emmerichand I. S. Weissbrodthave been extremelyhelpful,and I very much appreciatethe
assistanceof DianeUpright.The exhibitionhas been madepossibleby a generousgrant from
GFI/Knoll InternationalFoundation,and I wishparticularlyto thankMarshallCoganforhis keen
interestin its progress.
Onbehalfof the IVusteesof The Museumof ModernArt, I gratefullythank the lendersto
the exhibition,listed on the oppositepage.I gladlyacknowledge the importanthelp,either for
myresearchon Louisor for the realizationof this exhibition,of RobertAbrams,LeeArmstrong,
MichaelG.Auping,LynnBecker,John Berggruen,LeonardBocour,AlanBowness,EdgarPeters
Bowron,AbnerBrenner,J. Carter Brown,BonnieClearwater,DianaColeman,CharlesCowles,
RogerDavidson,Mrs.R. Dippel,MichaelFried, DavidGeffen,Ladyd'AvigdorGoldsmid,Bruce
Guenther,Anne d'Harnoncourt,Joseph Helman,Heather Hendrickson,Ted Hickey,KnudW
Jensen, CarolynJones,John Kasmin,Dr.Pieter Krieger,CatherineLampert,JamesJ. Lebron,
Janie C. Lee,NorbertLynton,Peter C. Marzio,CharlesMillard,KenworthMoffett,Jane Mulkey,
SybilMyersburg,StevenNash,GeorgeW Neubert,KennethNoland,BarbaraOsborn,Christina
Petra,EdmundPillsbury,MarkRosenthal,LawrenceRubin,WilliamRubin,DavidRyan,Mr.and
Mrs.FayezSarofim,Mr.and Mrs.TbbySchreiber,DouglasG.Schultz,KatieSolomonson, Melville
Straus, Liane Thatcher,Anne TVuitt,MauriceTbchman,LeslieWaddington,DianeWaldman,
DavidWarren,and MarciaWeisman.I also owea debt of gratitudeto fourfriendswithwhomI
havediscussedLouis'swork:CarlBelz,MoniqueBeudert,JackFlam,andWilliamEdwardO'Reilly.
At TheMuseumof ModernArt,mymaindebt is to RobertMcDaniel, whoassistedme on all
aspectsof the exhibitionand publication,makingimportantcontributionsto both.I wishalsoto
thank A1Albanoand AntoinetteKingfor adviceon conservation,and HarrietSchoenholzBee,
KathleenCurry,Daniel Frank, BetsyJablow,MaryJickling,Janet Jones, Carl Laanes,John
Limpert,Jr., ChristopherMount,Jerry Neuner,RichardL. Palmer,Eloise Ricciardelli,and
GretchenWold.
Additionally,
thanks go to E. A. Carmean,Jr., and JamesDemetrion,directorsof The Fort
WorthArt Museumand the HirshhornMuseumand SculptureGarden,respectively. TheMuseum
of ModernArt is gratefulfor their cordialcooperation. —J. E.
 9

l MORRISLOUIS'shistorical position, and consequentlyhis identity as a modern painter, is one of

the more difficult to establish in recent art. Exactly what makes his resplendently beautiful
canvases more than pleasing decorations is certainly as compellinga question (perhaps more so,
Louis'searly career; friendship with Noland and since it carries us immediately to an evaluation of Louis's importance). But that question is
introduction to Abstract Expressionism; partly answered by an understanding of his historical position, as are other necessary questions
influence of Greenberg;1954Veils;repudiated concerning his artistic development,which at times was erratic and at others so single-minded,
pictures of 1955-57 and the New YorkSchool obsessive,and astonishinglyproductive as to have virtually no precedent in modern art.
He was born Morris Louis Bernstein, the third of four sons in a lower-middle-classJewish
family,in Baltimore, Maryland,in 1912.He was the exact contemporary of Jackson Pollock and
three years older than Robert Motherwell,of the same age group as the younger members of the
so-calledFirst Generation of Abstract Expressionists.His early life was uneventful, but at the age
of fifteen he opposed family pressure to followhis brothers' careers in medicine and pharmacy
and won a four-yearscholarship to the MarylandInstitute of Fine and AppliedArts. Graduating
in 1932,he supported himself by a variety of odd jobs while pursuing his painting and becoming
active in local art affairs; in 1935he was elected president of the recently formed Baltimore
Artists' Union.None of his paintings from this period remain.
Like many of the Abstract Expressionists,he was employedduring the Depression by the
Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA);first in Baltimore in 1934,
where he worked on a mural titled The History of the Written Wordfor which he researched
1 early forms of writing; then in NewYork(he movedthere in 1936),where he changed his name
to Morris Louis.
While in New York he participated in David Alfaro Siqueiros's experimental workshop,
where automatic painting procedures and commercialmaterials and equipment, including spray
guns, airbrushes, and synthetic paint, were examined, at times in collaborative projects with
other artists. Pollockwas also a member of this workshop,but the two seem not to have met
then. He did get to knowArshile Gorkyand Jack Tworkov.But Louiswas apparently an extremely
withdrawn figure who preferred his privacyand, except for the womanwith whom he then lived,
a fellowWPAartist, he made no lasting friendships in NewYork.Painting was already virtually a
full-time obsession. He regularlyvisited The Museumof ModernArt and was very interested in
the work of MaxBeckmann,whose influence is clearly seen in one of the handful of his paintings
that survivefrom these years, a harsh, somewhat troubled image of two workmen. Manyof his
paintings were somber scenes of poverty and of workingpeople, appropriate to the conditions of
his life then. However,his paintings were untouched by contemporaryartistic influences. In the
early 1940s(the exact date is uncertain) he returned to Baltimoreto live with his parents, where
he remained until he married Marcella Siegel in 1947.
After his marriage Louismovedinto his wife'sapartment in the suburbs of Washington,D.C.
For the next five years he worked in isolation. During this time he gradually absorbed, mostly
from reproductions rather than first-hand contact, a range of abstract styles from Joan Miro to
Pollock, whose only common denominator was an emphasis on drawing. Louis also drew ob
sessively,most successfully in a Surrealist-influenced style indebted to Gorky.None of the
paintings or drawingsfrom 1947-51is particularly original,although some, especiallythose from
MorrisLouis.Untitled(TwoWorkmen).1939.Oil on canvas,44 x 1950-51, evidence an intelligence highly receptive to what was most demanding about an
34".Museumof FineArts,Boston abstract art based in drawing—especially the way in which a drawn armature can simul-
 10

taneouslyestablishan allover,relativelyevenlyaccented surface and allow more detailed,

specificallyincidentalreadingsof the elementsthat compriseit. Whileit wouldbe too mucha
hindsightinterpretationto see in paintingslikethe Pollock-influencedCharredJournalseriesof
1951an overridingemphasison the organizationbydrawingof an allovermonochrome field,it is
not unreasonableto see theseworksas the springboardsof Louis'smatureart.
The CharredJournalpaintings,in particular,and the Motherwell-influenced Tranquilities
collagesthat followedin 1952-53,reveala highlyastute,knowledgeable artist preoccupiedwith
the problemoffixingemphatically chargedimageryontoa demonstrably flat,wafer-thinsurface.
In these paintingsand collageshis solutionwas to exaggeratecontrasts of light and dark.
Whetherby setting pale, wirelikefilamentsagainst a dark, striated surface or by imposing
regularlyspaced dark verticalsagainst a light surface,he workedwith an ultimatelyCubist
systemof tonaloppositions.Thegiveand take betweenfigureand groundsimultaneously forces
the imageryto the eye and locates it within a shallowplanar continuumwhose limits are
establishedbythe characterofthe imageryitself,eitherbecausethe drawingturns in uponitself
aroundthe edgesof the picture,as Pollock'sdoes,or becauseit alignsitselfto the edgesof the
picture,as Motherwell's does.At least, that seemsto havebeen the intention.In either case,
however, the senseoftangibleimageslaidout on top ofthe groundmakesthe coherenceofthese
workssomewhatproblematical,certainlysomewhatplottedand conventional.
One thing further shouldbe noted about these flawedbut neverthelessaccomplished
pictures:their serialcharacter.Evenwith Louis'searlierfigurativeworks,"whenhe'd get inter
ested in somethinghe'd practicallywearit out.Hehad this abilityto selectsomethingand stick
to it. Forexample,whenhe wastryingto makeonefiguresit in a space,he'd do twentyor thirty
2 versionswith hardly any differencebetweenthem." Whileonly about fifty of his pre-1954
paintingshavesurvived,it is clearthat he wasalreadyan extremelyprolificartist. Thenumerous
survivingdrawingsof 1950-53are also evidenceof this, particularlya large series based on a
flattenedovalshape(somederivedfroma fish)withscatteredscribblesand lines,and occasion
3 ally ruled grids, inside. KennethNoland,whomLouismet in 1952,has said that while he
considershimselfprolific,he remembersthat at one time Louisseemedto be paintingtwenty
4 picturesto his one. ClementGreenberg,to whomNolandintroducedLouisin 1953,has referred
to Louishavingbeen likean expresstrain, unstoppableoncestarted on a particulartrack.
In 1952Louismovedfromthe suburbsinto Washington itselfand obtaineda job teaching
i
eveningclassesat the Washington Workshop Centerof the Arts,a "gatheringplacefor advanced
5 art people,"as LeonBerkowitz, its director,describedit. Nolandbeganteachingthere the same a
year,and the two quicklybecamegoodfriends despitetheir differencesin age (Nolandwas
twenty-eight,Louisforty) and temperament(Nolandwas gregarious,Louiswithdrawn).Louis
d
6 later said of their meeting,"SuddenlyI wasn'talone."
By1952Louiswas a respectedprovincialartist whowonprizesat localexhibitions,served
on the Artists'Committeeof TheBaltimoreMuseumofArt, and attractedprivatepupils.Hewas
an extremelyexperiencedartist, havingworkedat his paintingfor some twentyyears since
graduatingfromthe MarylandInstitute.In terms of recent art, however,Nolandwas the more
7 informed.Not onlyhad his educationbeen in avant-gardeart (at BlackMountainCollegein
NorthCarolinain 1946-48,wherehe studiedwithIlyaBolotowsky, and in Parisin 1948-49,where
he studiedwithOssipZadkine)but he had alreadymadecontactwithavant-gardecirclesin New
 York.In the summer of 1950,at Black Mountain College,Noland met Clement Greenberg and
Helen Frankenthaler, and later that year, in New York,David Smith. He soon became the main
conduit to Washingtonfor ideas and information about the New Yorkart scene. As Anne lYuitt
recalled, "Ken began to go back and forth . . . and see people like Clem Greenberg and David
Smith. . . and all sorts of people . . . [especially]Jackson Pollock.He talked to everybodyin New
York,and then he would come back to Washingtonand bring this information . . . about what
Jackson Pollockwas doing, about Kline, and about ClyffordStill, about Rothko, about Newman
. . . turning Washingtonfrom a provinciallittle backwater artistically—which it certainly was—
into a sort of brew out of which artists could come who were working,if not possiblyat the very
8 highest standards ... [at least] within the context of modern art."
In the education of the Washingtonart scene, Greenbergwas of unquestioned importance.
He eventuallyvisited Washingtonevery six months or so, and advised several artists about their
9 work, Louis included. Renowned for his critical writings as well as for his championship of
Pollock'swork, he brought to Washingtonnot only the authority of the NewYorkart world but an
authoritative interpretation of recent NewYorkart. In 1950-52he was articulating—as no other
critic was—the particular and specificpictorial problems that Abstract Expressionism(or, as he
called it, Painterly Abstraction) was currently facing, and especiallyits need to save the objects
of its painterliness, color and spatial openness, from the potentially cloggingsurfaces of paint-
erliness itself.
Whereas most writing on Abstract Expressionismstressed the supposedlyantitraditional,
Existentialist, and crisis-ridden aspects of the style (most remarkably,Harold Rosenberg'scon
troversial essay, "The American Action Painters," which appeared in Art News in December
1952),and consequently tended to admire its more heated, "gestural" form, Greenberg's inter
pretation was cool, closelyanalytical of the formal mechanics of the paintings, and emphatically
historical. In particular, it stressed the Cubist heritage in Abstract Expressionism.As he later
wrote, "The grafting of painterliness on a Cubist infrastructure was, and will remain, the great
10 and original achievement of the first generation of Painterly Abstraction." By the early 1950s,
however, he came to feel that the increasingly showy painterliness developing in the circle
around Willemde Kooningeither disguised or embodiedvery conventionalCubist structures. He
also felt that the Cubist component of the style hindered the full realization of certain "post-
Cubist" aspects that were producing not only more radical but also more deeply felt paintings,
11 oppositeabove: JacksonPollock.Full Fathom Five. 1947.Oil on most notablyby Pollock,whom he described in 1952as "in a class by himself." These post-Cubist
canvaswithnails,tacks,buttons,key,coins,cigarettes,matches,etc.,
50% x 30%".The Museumof ModernArt, NewYork.Giftof Peggy aspects were manifested in decentralized, allover compositionalfields created from "relaxed"
Guggenheim forms of drawing and design to produce a distinctively nontactile, optical space from which
oppositebelow.MorrisLouis.CharredJournal: FirewrittenI. 1951. sculptural illusions were expelled. "Instead of the illusion of things, we are now offered the
Acrylicresin on canvas,39% x 30".NationalMuseumof American illusionof modalities:namely,that matter is incorporeal,weightless and exists only optically like
12 Art,Washington, D.C. a mirage."
above:RobertMotherwell. Granada:Elegyto the SpanishRepublic This was not orthodox opinion in the early 1950s. Indeed, as Abstract Expressionism
II. 1949.Oil on paper mountedon compositionboard,48 x 56V&". became acknowledgedas a truly important phase of contemporary art, it was the circle around
NationalThistfor HistoricPreservation.NelsonA.Rockefeller
Collec
13 tion de Kooning that achieved prominence in the art community. This was partly an art-world
below: MorrisLouis:The TranquilitiesIII. 1952-53.Collage(tissue reaction to Pollock's increasing public fame; partly a response to de Kooning'sgreater ac
paperand acrylicon upsomboard),37%x 58%".TheFortWorthArt cessibility at the heart of things "downtown"on Tenth Street; and partly a result of the greater
Museum,FortWorth.Giftof MarcellaLouisBrenner accessibility,to critics as well as painters, of de Kooning'sart. While Pollockwas presented as a
 12

radical,crisis-riddenexpressionistas often as de Kooningwas, Greenberg'svocalsupport of

Pollockin verydifferentterms meantthat (in the art communityat least) it was de Kooning
rather than Pollockwhoincreasinglybecamethe focusof attentionand acclaimas the Existen
tialistheroofAbstractExpressionism. Moreover,
Pollock'sworkseemedaestheticallya deadend;
for youngerartists his alloverstyleofferedfar feweroptions,short of mere repetition,than de
Kooning's. Thesamewasgenerallytrue of MarkRothko,BarnettNewman,and ClyffordStill.Like
Pollock,theyhad somefollowers,but far fewerthan de Kooningattracted;and likePollock,they
tendedto keepapart fromthe "downtown" scene—moreso,in fact.Rothko'sone-manexhibition
in 1950was not repeateduntil 1955,Newman'sin 1950and 1951not until 1959,and Still'sin 1950
and 1951not until 1961.
Meanwhile, the workofyoungerartistsaroundde Kooningsuchas MichaelGoldberg, Alfred
Leslie,Joan Mitchell,and MiltonResnickbeganto be shown,in somecases with Greenberg's
initial support.But Greenberg'squestioningof de Kooning'ssuperioritysoon meant that his
14 standingwith that circle"deterioratedto that of animosityand belligerencytowardshim." All
this, however,as IrvingSandlerhas pointedout,was morethan a divisionbetweenthe suppor
ters of Pollockand those of de Kooning.It was, rather, a divisionbetweenthe cohesivede
15 Kooninggroupand thosewhodid not want to be in it or werenot welcomein it.
Louis'sintroductionto contemporaryNewYorkart throughGreenberg'sinterpretationof it
is a crucial factor in his artistic development.Greenberg'sdissatisfactionwith Cubist-based
AbstractExpressionismmeant that he soon became more interested in the work of Still,
Newman,and Rothko.Butinitially,this dissatisfactiondirectedhimto HenriMatisse,and then to
Impressionism. BothofferedwaysaroundCubismforcontemporary artists,not the least ofwhich
wasthe possibilityof imbuingwithaffectivecolorthe atomizedlightsand darksofPollock'spost-
Cubiststyle.Matisse,in addition,offereda tellingmorallessonfor contemporaryartists. It is
difficultto believethat Louiswouldnot havethoughtabouthis ownsituationwhenreadingthis
passagefromGreenberg'sreviewof the large Matisseretrospectiveat The Museumof Modern
Art in the winterof1951/52: "Likeanyotherartist, Matisseworkedat firstin borrowedstyles;but
if he appearsto haveproceededrather slowlytowardthe discoveryof his ownuniqueself,it was
16 less out of lackof self-confidencethan becauseofverysophisticatedscruplesabouthis truth."

ONTHEWEEKEND ofApril3-5, 1953,Louismadehis firstvisitto NewYorkwithNoland.Onthe

Fridaymorning,they met Greenbergat the Cedarbar and went togetherto HarryJackson's
studio.Therest of that dayand part of the nextwerespentvisitinggalleries;they sawpaintings
by Franz Klineand Pollock,amongothers;it was probablyLouis'sfirst exposureto Pollock's
paintingsin the original.On Saturdayevening,alongwith Greenberg,Kline,and someothers,
theyvisitedFrankenthaler'sstudio,wheretheystayedfor aboutfivehours.
Louis'sand Noland'senthusiasticreactionto seeingFrankenthaler'sMountainsand Sea in
her studio—and their immediate,abruptchangein workingmethodsand, indeed,in their very
conceptionof painting—is nowso firmlyembeddedin the written historiesof contemporary
Americanart that this "revelation"cannotcompletelybe pried clear fromits literaryexistence
and actuallyimaginedas taking place on Twenty-thirdStreet betweenSeventhand Eighth
avenues.Morethan this: suchis the powerof the often-repeatedto engendernot beliefbut the
veryoppositethat the temptationnaturallyarises to assumethat we are in the realmof myth,
 13

fe- not of historical fact. But it did take place and it was a revelation. It did not provide either artist
with ready-madesolutions: some ten months elapsed before Louis was able to make paintings
that embodiedhis truth from what he learned from Frankenthaler's painting, and it took Noland
much longer. But there is no doubt that it made a profound impression on both artists. "For a
year after they came back," HowardMehringremembered,"Mountains and Sea was all that Ken
17 and Morris talked about."
This is part of Greenberg's by now classic account of how Louis was affected by this New
Yorkvisit: "Hisfirst sight of the middle-periodPollocksand of a large and extraordinary painting
done in 1952 by Helen Frankenthaler, called 'Mountains and Sea,' led Louis to change his
direction abruptly.AbandoningCubismwith a completenessfor which there was no precedent in
either influence, he began to feel, think, and conceivealmost exclusivelyin terms of open color.
The revelation he received became an Impressionistrevelation, and before he so much as caught
a glimpse of anything by Still, Newman, or Rothko, he had aligned his art with theirs. His
revulsion against Cubism was a revulsion against the sculptural. Cubism meant shapes, and
Helen Frankenthaler.Mountains and Sea. 1952.Oil on canvas, shapes meant armatures of light and dark. Color meant areas and zones, and the interpenetra-
3/s" 7' 2 x 9' 9!4".Collectionthe artist (on loan to the National tion of these, which could be achieved better by variations of hue than by variations of value.
Galleryof Art,Washington,
D.C.) Recognitions like these liberated Louis's originality along with his hitherto dormant gift for
18 color."
In his gloss on this passage by Greenberg, Michael Fried underscored its implication that
Louis'soriginalityand gift for color were simplynot in evidence prior to the liberating effects of
19 these recognitions. This is indisputably true. For example, it is known that Louis constantly
referred his students to Matisse'swork, which he prized above that of any other early modern
artist. And yet, there is no lesson of Matisse in his own preceding work; the revelation of
Mountains and Sea gave Louis access to Matisse.What was involvedwas certainly an epiphany
of a sort. But it is perhaps better described more prosaically,as Nolanddescribed it: "It was as if
Morris had been waiting all his life for information. Once given the information, he had the
20 ability to make pictures with it."
Louis in 1953,furthermore, was perfectly positioned to use the information. By this I not
only mean that he was hungry for first-hand contact with the kind of art he already admired, but
that his admirations, especiallyfor Pollock,had already brought him to the point where he knew
that Pollockhad to be assimilated into his own art and that all he had been able to do thus far
was imitate him. Pollock,in effect, stood in his way,as Pablo Picasso had stood in Pollock'sway.
And just as Pollock was finally able to overcome his slavish dependence on Picasso through
Surrealist and other art associable with Picasso's, finding in these sources a way back to
unrealized, and therefore realizable, aspects of Picasso'sart, so Louisfound a wayof approaching
Pollock's art through Frankenthaler's. "Wewere interested in Pollock," Noland related, "but
could gain no lead from him. He was too personal. But Frankenthaler showedus a way—a wayto
think about, and use, color."Louisagreed. Frankenthaler, he said, "was a bridge between Pollock
21 and what was possible."
On April 12,1953,a week after Louis'sreturn to Washington,his first one-man show opened
there at the WorkshopArt Center Gallery.It included some of the Charred Journal paintings and
Tranquilitiescollages.An artist's first one-man show is usually a cause for celebration, but it is
hard to believe that Louis was other than chagrined to see how inconsequential his pictures
 14

appearedcomparedto those he had seen in NewYork.Whatis more,two groupsof Abstract

Expressionist pictures,includingworksbyAdolphGottlieb,de Kooning, Motherwell, and Pollock,
were simultaneously on viewat the CorcoranGalleryof Art and at the CatholicUniversityof
America.Louis'sfriendLeonBerkowitzhadwrittena sympatheticintroductionto his exhibition
cataloguein whichhe comparedLouis'sdrawingto that ofPaulKleeand Miro.Thecomparisonis
apt when appliedto the CharredJournalpaintings,and pointsdirectlyto their conservatism.
Louisdestroyedthe 1953paintingshe had donebeforevisitingNewYorkand madea newstart.
Onthe train backto Washington fromNewYork,Louisand Nolandhad decidedthat they
had to makedrasticchangesin their approachto painting,and agreedto try what they called,
22 usinga jazz analogy,"jampainting" —bothworkingtogether,evenon the samecanvas.("Jazz
22 menlistento each other,"Nolandlater remarked,"criticizingthe truth of eachother'ssound.")
24 Sincetheyhadfirstmet,theyhad recognizedin eachother"anaffinityoftaste," particularlyin
their admirationof Motherwelland Pollock.Amongthe lessonsof Mountainsand Sea was
freedomin the use of materialsand in methodsof paint application,both morenoticeablein
Frankenthaler'sworkthan Pollock'sbecausehers was moreeclecticin its pictorialvocabulary. if-
DavidSmithhad advisedthem of the importanceof not beingpreciouswith materialsbut of
25 keepingplentyof suppliesat handand usingthem liberally. Hitherto,the notionofbeginninga
picturefromnothinghad not been a reassuringone for either artist. It is true that Louishad
workedfreelywith materialsin Siqueiros's workshopin 1936,but it had not liberatedhis art as
this newexperimentalepisodewould.Louis'sCharredJournalpaintingshad beenconceivedwith
referenceto Nazibookburnings;the Tranquilitiescollagesmaywell alludeto the patterns of
picketfences.Now,however,Louisand Nolandsought"to break downtheir previousassump
26 tions"and to "breakopenpainting"by experimenting with the materialsof paintingitself.
Amongthe approachesthey tried were pouringpaint, paintingwith rags,fingerpainting,
shiftingthe orientationof the paintingas theyworked,cuttingdownpaintings,and croppingout
paintingsfromlarger areas of canvas.The May1951issue ofArt Newshad reproducedphoto
graphsof Pollockat workon the floorofhis studio.LouisandNolandwereparticularlyimpressed
a /
byboth Pollockand Frankenthalerhavingchosento workon the floor.It madethe canvas"more
2' material—morea real surfaceand not an (ideal)pictureplane." Theyalsotried placingobjects
randomlyon the floorwiththe canvasdrapedoverthem,then pouringpaint ontothe surfaceso
that it createdunexpectedconfigurations as it flowedoverand aroundthe protrusions.Later,the
28 flatnessof the pictureplanewas reasserted,as Nolandsaid,"justby stretching."
This last approachis especiallyinterestinggiventhe future directionof Louis'sart, for
nearlyall (if not indeedall) his maturepaintings(fromthe 1954Veilsonward)were madeon
canvasthat was drapedon and tackedto a woodenstretcher,whichleanedagainstthe studio
wall.(Furthermore,it wouldseemthat a fewextantLouispaintingsof 1955and 1956were made
29 using the methodthat he developedwith Noland.) WhereasPollockneeded, he said, "the
resistanceof a hard surface,"Louis,as MichaelFried has observed,"seemsto have needed
m nothingmore,but nothingless,than the resistanceof the canvasitself!
Aftertwo or three weeksof "jampainting,"Louisand Nolandreturned to workingsepa
rately.Noneof their joint experimentsseemsto havesurvived.Nevertheless,their effectcan be
seen in the newfreedomof handlingin Louis'snine extantpaintingsfromlater in 1953. 21Alluse
staining(albeiton sizedand primedcanvasor on board),mostlyin swirlingor driftingconfigura-
 15

tionsreminiscentof Pollockand Frankenthaler;but not all use it exclusively. Somecontainheavy

dosesof aluminumpaint,whichclearlyderivesfromPollock,althoughthe wayit is used—to fill
in cursivelydrawndarkerlines—producesan effectreminiscentof de Kooning, whoseinfluence
32 can alsobe seen in Noland's1953paintings. Otherssuperimposethe stainedareaswithheavier,
morethrusting(and moreCubist)drawingderivedfromKline.The finestpictureof the group,
Trellis, is the one whereFrankenthaler 's influenceis strongest.It is a "drawn"painting,whose
soft diagonaldrifts of thinned-downcolorhang fromthe top edge,generallysuggestiveof the
grapearborof its title. Aswith Frankenthaler'swork,it evokeslandscape,althoughits pictorial
unityis not basedon that evocationbut, rather,on the artist'smanipulationofvarieddensitiesof
staining,directionsof pouringand dripping,and on that senseof air and extensionprovidedby
the exposedcanvaswhoseownsubstantiality(here, becauseof the white priming)seemsas
great as that of the areas that are painted.
Evenat this moment,however,Louiswas still a derivativeartist whosecombinationof the
influencesof Pollock,Frankenthaler,de Kooning,and Kline,whileproducingmore ambitious,
MorrisLouis.Trellis.1953.Acrylicresinon canvas,6' 4" x 8' 8". more urgentlyfelt pictures than hitherto, did not yet embodyhis truth. This leads to the
Privatecollection conclusionthat these 1953paintingsare not, in fact, whollydiscontinuouswith those made
beforeLouissawMountainsand Sea and that they do not completelyrepudiatethe underlying
assumptionsof the earlierwork.It is undeniablethat LouisviewedMountainsand Sea as the
sourceof newpossibilities,that these requiredhim to alter drasticallyhis methodsof painting,
and that he himselfrecognizedthis as a major shift in directionin his work.It is further
undeniablethat Louishimselfrepudiatedhis earlierwork(destroying,as we haveseen,his early
1953production)and its underlyingCubistassumptions.At the sametime,it mightreasonably
be claimedthat Louisoverstatedthe extent of the influenceofMountainsand Sea on his own
work;or rather,he mayhaveoversimplified it.
There are, in fact, someanticipationsof what followedin the earlier work.Tbcompare
typicalpicturesof 1952and 1954by Louisis certainlyto recognizean enormousgulfbetween
them,and not onlytechnicallyand stylistically, but qualitatively
as well.However,the picturesof
1953madeafter he sawMountainsand Sea are no morediscontinuous withthose of 1952than
the 1952worksare with those that precededthem, and they carry quite smoothlyto those of
1954,exceptin termsof quality.Finally,the transitionfrom1953to 1954—the actualtransitionto
the first series of Veils—was achievednot solelyby referencesto Pollockand Frankenthaler.
That is the result. But at the actual momentof breakthroughLouisseemsalso to have been
indebtedto Kline.
Writingto Greenbergin mid-1954, Louisobserved,"I don't care a great deal about the
33 positiveaccomplishments in [otherpainters']workor myownsincethat leadsto an end." With
referenceto somelater paintingsof his, he said that they "are lousyenoughto interestme now
34 and makeme want to explorethis further." Additionally, he told his studentsthat their bad
paintingsheld the keyto their developmentand that they shouldrisk failureby pursuingwhat
35 oppositeabove:Willemde Kooning.Woman, I. 1950-52.
Oilon can these,rather than their better works,suggested.
vas,6' 3%"x 58".TheMuseum ofModernArt,NewYork.Purchase Trellisis the most successfulof Louis's1953pictures.Certainlythe least successfulare
oppositebelow
: MorrisLouis.SilverDiscs.1953.Acrylicresinand workssuch as Landscape, whichis like a Klineon top of a Frankenthaler.If Louisdid indeed
aluminum painton canvas,6'5" x 55".PhilbrookArtCenter,Hilsa, workout of his weakestpicturesat this time,it seemsprobablethat the earliestof the 1954Veils
Okla.,1961 wereworkssuch as UntitledA, in effecta Klinemadewith the techniqueof a Frankenthaler,

*«M »i r. • .
* t
 16

that is to say,composedof broadmonochromatic, thrustingplanesmadeby staining.

Wedo not knowthe orderin whichthe 1954Veilswerepainted.Whatfollowsis, therefore,a
fictionalconstruction,but it serves the purposeof explainingthe stylisticcomponentsand
optionsthat Louisexploredin this series,whichcomprisessixteenextantworksmadesometime
betweenearlyJanuaryand earlyJune 1954(pages85-95).
The Kline-Frankenthaler conflationof UntitledA is closelyrelatedto the Kline-deKoon-
ing-Frankenthalerconflationof UntitledB, whichexaggeratesthe coloristiclessonof Frank-
enthaler'sart, overlayingplanar swathesof intensecoloracrossthe center of the canvas.The
horizontalTerrain of Joy belongsin the same group.RobertRosenblumhas astutelycharac
terized it as "an X-rayedDe Kooning"where "impulsive,frothingstreaks of colorthat recall
36 brushworkwith palpablepigmentare paradoxicallydematerialized."Louis'sdissociationof
painterlinessfromthe loadedbrush,whichhe learnedfromFrankenthaler,is characteristicof
all the Veilpaintings(boththe 1954and 1958-59series).In this groupof three workswithinthe
first seriesit providesnoticeablycontradictoryclues:the dematerialization of whatone expects
to be palpable,the blendingby absorptioninto the surfaceofwhatlooksto be overlaid,and the
quietingby that same processof what seemsto have been excitedlymade.Louis'sachieved
picturesdependsignificantly on their provisionof conflictingcluesespeciallywithregardto the
spatialversusthe sculpturaland the insubstantialversusthe physical.In this particulargroupof
Veils,however,the overlaidswathesare inescapablyCubistbecausetheycan be read separately
as shapes,and inescapablyphysicalbecausethey are self-evidently flungon the canvas,for
whichreasontheyseemalsosomewhatarbitraryor,alternatively, somewhatcontrived.Theyare
also composedin such a way as to constituteholisticimagessuspendedjust short of the m-
perimetersof the pictures.In this respect,they drawon the workof Pollock.
So does, more obviously,a related workcalledSpreading, whosegreater successis at
tributableto Louishavingusedareas rather than shapesof color,therebyvirtuallyexpellingthe
Cubistsenseof planaroverlapping and emphasizing insteadthe lateralexpansionofthe painting
acrossthe surface.Here,the tonal homogeneity of the alloverfieldparticularlyrecallsPollock,
as doesthe moreintimaterelationachievedbetweenthe limitsof the fieldand the shapeof the
support.It is achieved,interestingly,not by Pollock'smethodof turningthe drawingof the field
inwardas it is aboutto meetthe edgesof the picturebut byslowingthe fieldto a stop in sucha
waythat its wholedrawnshaperepeatsthat of the edgesof the picture.
Apart from one other early 1954painting (a compositionof vividlycoloredhorizontal
37 stripes,propheticof muchlater ColorFieldpainting,whichhardlybelongsin the Veilseries),
the remainderof the 1954Veils—elevenworks—are generallysimilarin conceptionand execu
tion.TheyweremadebyLouispouringa sequenceof differentcoloredwavesor bandsofthinned
paint downthe surfaceof the canvasto producea fanlikeshapewithinwhichthe limitsof the
separatewavesare visible,roughlyparalleldownthe center but inclinedinwarddownthe sides;
and yet they constitutean unbroken,visuallycontinuoussurface,whosehomogeneity is further
enforced,in somecases,by superimposition of the alloverwash of darkercolorthat givesthe
series its name. All but one of what becamehorizontalpictureswere begunwith pourings
runningat right anglesto those that eventuallydominated.This suggeststhat Louis'sinitial
intentionmayhavebeen to producea Pollock-like interlaceof crossingpoured"lines,"and that
he subsequentlyrealizedthat whilehis instinctin wantingto overlapthe pouringsmorecandidly
 17

than in the de Kooning-influencedworkswas right, his method was not: that all he had to do was
overlapthe whole set of roughlyparallel or splayedpourings,either by setting them downnext to
each other and then veiling them over,or by overlappingthem as he set them down and then
veilingthem over.Naturally,all of this is supposition.But it is true that the most successfulof the
1954Veilpictures are those that contain both a dominant vertical direction and enough superim
posed waves of paint to produce a close-valuedfield—howeverthey were painted and whatever
their final orientation turned out to be.
There is much still to say concerning the technique, facture, drawing, and compositionof
the 1954Veils. However,I will postpone this discussion until reaching the point when Louis
resumed making Veils in 1958, not only to avoid needless repetition but because I want to
imaginewhat Louis himself saw,in 1958,in his earlier Veilseries. Louishimself, in 1954,did not
see the possibilitiesthis small group of paintings had opened. He had worked in series since 1951,
but it was not until 1958that he seemed to quite recognizewherein lay the quality and originality
of his art. Or,rather, in 1954he still distrusted even, perhaps especially,his finest achievements,
not yet certain they were truly his own. As Greenberg wrote of Matisse, "He had to make sure,
before he could move toward independence, that he really felt differently and had different
things to say than did those artists whom he admired and by whom he was influenced. He went
on doubting himself this way.... His hesitations were openlyconfessed—but they also had a lot
38 to do with the exceptional mastery of his craft that he finallyacquired."

WHENGREENBERG visited Louis in Washingtonon January 5, 1954,it is unlikelythat any of the

Veilshad yet been started. Certainly,Greenbergwas not shownthem. He was there to select work
for the exhibitionEmerging Thlentat the Samuel M. KootzGalleryin NewYork,and chose three
paintings by Louis: Trellis, Silver Discs, and a lost work, Foggy Bottom. Louis, together with
Noland, also an exhibitor, brought their paintings to NewYorkon January 7 and spent some of
the next day with Greenberg,Frankenthaler, DavidSmith, and Harry Jackson. The show ran from
MorrisLouis.UntitledA. 1954.Acrylicresin on canvas,8' 10" x
6' 1".CollectionGrahamGund,Cambridge,Mass. January 11to 30, and Louis'spaintings were well received.On February6, Louisand Nolandagain
visited New York,presumably to pick up their paintings, and again saw Greenberg and Frank
enthaler.
When exactly in 1954the first Veilpaintings were begun is uncertain. Whether Louisbegan
them before he saw his 1953 paintings in the Kootz Gallery exhibition, whether sight of his
paintings there propelled him to new change, and whether the broad range of older and newer
Abstract Expressionistart he could have seen in NewYorkgalleries in January and February 1954
(including a Kline and a Pollock show) helped him make the move are necessarily matters of
speculation. His canvas orders suggest that he made over one hundred paintings a year, which
means that the sixteen Veilscould have been produced in eight weeks or so. In any event, it
seems likely that Louis had already movedon from the Veilsto a new run of paintings by June 1
when he wrote to Greenberg about positiveaccomplishmentsleading to an end, and certain that
oppositeabove:FranzKline.Diagonal.1952.Oilon canvas,43/2 x he had done so when he wrote again on June 6.
32/2".CollectionMr.and Mrs.I. DavidOrr Greenberg had asked Pierre Matisse if he would look at Louis'spaintings and consider
oppositebelow.MorrisLouis.Landscape{Mid-day).1953.Acrylic showingthem in his gallery.Louis,therefore, sent to NewYorka roll of nine paintings,though not
resin on canvas,45 x 35". CollectionJ. Leon and PaulineSher- without considerable misgivingsabout which he should include: "It was the usual struggle with
eshefsky,ChevyChase,Md. my normal doubts re the stuff continuallyrising & then concludingthat they were, after all, ptgs
 •..v....

18

I'd done&I'd haveto let it standat that this time.I realizeI'd goneoverboardon the later stuff,
none of whichyou'dseen. Byyourarrangementwith me you'llget to see them & I want that
aboveall. . . .
"Thereare 9 ptgsin the roll.... Allare aboutthe samelargesizebut in mymind2 ofthem
are differentthan the continuityof simplepattern&slowmotionin the majority.These2 are the
rougheroneswithlotsof black&whiteareas.Maybethese are lousyenoughto interestme now
&makemewantto explorethis further.TheothersI feelI'vedoneall I feellikedoingaboutthat
episode.Fora momentI lookedat "IVellis' & a coupleof othersyou'dseen before.Just couldn't
bringmyselfto includethem & with all the doubtsI ever had aboutanythingI've ever chosen
39 aloneI submitthis group."
The four importantpointsof this statementmaybe summarized:Louishad doubtsabout
whichof his paintingswere importantand hopedfor Greenberg'sadvice;he realizedhe had
"goneoverboard"on the paintings(the Veils)madesinceGreenberg's last visit;theseworkswere
basedon "the continuityof simplepattern and slowmotion,"but that "episode"was nowover;
the paintingshe wantedto developweresome"lousy"works,"rougheroneswithlots of black&
whiteareas"that he sent alongwiththe Veils.
When,togetherwithFrankenthaleras wellas PierreMatisse,Greenbergsawthe paintings
unrolled,he wasastonishedbythe changein Louis'sart and foundthe best ofthem evidence,for
the firsttime,of Louisas a matureartist.It shouldbe remarked,however, that onlytwopaintings
in the group,Salient (page87) andAtomicCrest (page93),weretrulyfirst-rate.Louishad sent
mostlythe less than fullyresolvedVeils.Evenless resolvedwere the "rougher"paintings,but
Louisknewthat. Pierre Matissewas not impressed;the paintingswereremovedto Greenberg's
apartmentfor storage.Louissaw Greenbergin NewYorklater that year (towardthe end of
December, whenhe visitedthe studiosof de Kooningand FriedelDzubas),but Greenbergdid not
see Louis'spaintingsagainuntilten monthslater,onApril2-3, 1955,whenhe visitedWashington.
Whathe then sawwas disappointing: stained,alloverpaintingsbut conventionally Abstract
Expressionist. The series of "rougher"workshad clearlylongbeen finished,for Greenberghas
saidthat whathe saw,"farfrombeing'rough,'struckmeas toobland,in whichrespecttheywere
quiteunlikeanythinghe'd donebefore&anythinghe did afterwards(includingwhathe showed
at MarthaJackson'sin 1957).I rememberthere beingmorethan thirty of them,&theywereall
40 destroyedby the artist." Greenbergurged Louisto visit NewYorkmore often, if onlyto see
41 "whatkindof paintingshe did not want to paint," reasoningthat if Louissawhowsimilarhis
paintingswereto the manyweakSecondGenerationAbstractExpressionist paintingsexhibited
in NewYork,it wouldforcehiminto change.Butnot onlydid Louishavelittle moneyto spareto
financesuchtrips, moreto the point,he chosenot to makethem.
Louis'swillingnessto take advicefrom Greenbergand one or two other closefriendson
certainveryspecificaspectsof his art has givenriseto the ideasthat there weredecisionsabout
his art he was willingto leave to others and that his conceptionof makingart allowedfor
decisionsof a collaborative nature.It is true that he was opento, and canvassed,opinionsabout
the croppingand the orientationof someof his Veiland Stripe pictures.It is also true that
Greenberg'sunenthusiasticresponseto three groupsof paintingswas influentialin his decision
42 to repudiatethem. However, weknowthat in the vastmajorityofcaseshe did not chooseto ask
for opinionsaboutthe croppingand orientationof hisVeilsand Stripes,not to mentionhis other
 19

paintings, and that he regularlyrepudiated works he had not shownto anyonethat did not satisfy
43 his artistic standards. Louis did solicit Greenberg'sadvice, and his influence on Louis should
not be underestimated; neither should it be misunderstood.After Greenberg'sApril 1955visit to
Louis'sstudio, he made only four others in Louis'slifetime, and did not see Louisor his paintings
until Louis'sNovember1957exhibition at the Martha Jackson Gallery.In any case, Louis'sfinal
decisionswere his alone; he never delegated the responsibilityfor these decisions even when he
came to the conclusionthat the advice he had taken was wrong.This is not to suggest, however,
that there would have been anything improper about Louis soliciting or accepting more advice
than he did.
Indeed, it is a very reasonable proposition that had Louis been more willing to visit New
Yorkin the mid-1950s,and had he remained in closer contact with Greenberg,he might conceiv
ably have saved himself some of the problems that beset his art in this period. However,his
unswervingbelief in his own powers, even and perhaps especially in moments of difficulty,was
inseparable from the intransigent side of his personality,"lb be an artist takes not onlycourage,"
44 he once remarked, "but something more—you must be willing to expose yourself to ridicule."
MorrisLouis.TerrainofJoy. 1954.Acrylicresinon canvas,6' IZ2"x Everythinghad to be worked out in the studio; the only real collaborationpossible was with his
8' 9V8".
CollectionGrahamGund,Cambridge,Mass. materials; and it was most important, he told his students, "to risk failure, to produce constantly
45 without concern for what was commonlyaccepted as ARTor as good art." In consequence, he
came to dislike lookingat other artists' paintings, and after having accepted influence willingly
at first seemed later to do so only reluctantly. He assumed that familiarity with earlier art was
essential to any ambitious painter's education, yet he also held that "tradition for a painter is an
intolerable burden, lb hold in one's mind those great works of the past as measures will
inevitablycut off the spontaneous flowof creative idea."His first admonitionto his students was:
'Avoidpainting anything that has been done before. Go to museums if you must but destroy any
work of your own that is even vaguelyreminiscent of the past."
Of what may have been more than three hundred paintings made by Louis between June
1954 and November 1957, only ten are known to have survived and three others are known
through photographs;such was the extent of his own revision of his oeuvre. Indeed, it is certain
that none would now remain had Louisbeen able to lay his hands on the rest of them, and that
he was extremely unhappy about the fact that even so tiny a fraction of these works got into the
46 public domain. The few words I have to say about them should be viewed in this light. These
works giveus the barest indication of Louis'sdevelopment— or floundering—in this three-and-a-
half-yearperiod; they also giveus a very clear indication of the kind of painting, not only his own,
he came to abhor.
Louis had abandoned the first Veil series in June of 1954,presumably to make additional
"rougher" paintings with areas of black-and-white,then made a series of stained, allover paint
ings, which Greenberg remembered as being very bland. They were done, Greenberg said,
47 "without the Veiling'or 'curtaining' [of the Veils]and in more forthright color." Since all these
were destroyed, the sole extant 1955picture must have been made after Greenberg'sApril 1955
oppositeabove:MorrisLouis.UntitledB. 1954.Acrylicresin on can visit. It uses irregular light bars running across looselypoured zones of primary hues. By early
vas,8' 7" x 7' 6".CollectionCarterBurden,NewYork 1956 Louis was back doing paintings not too far from the Frankenthaler-Pollock-influenced
oppositebelow.MorrisLouis.Spreading.1954.Acrylicresin on can works of some three years before, only with higher color contrasts and more wet-into-wet
vas,6' m x 8' 1".CollectionVincentMelzac,Washington, D.C. pourings. The surfaces of these works comprise allover patterns or more-or-lesssimilarly sized
 zonesof pooledpaint set off by a larger zone or (on one occasion)by the drawnshapes of
unpaintedareas of canvas.Althoughhighlycolored,they read first and foremostthroughthe
pattern of tonalcontrastsprovidedbythe differenthues.Althoughcroppingseemsto havebeen
used to fix the dimensionsof their surfaces,it has the effectof makingthem seem cut from
largerwholes.The same is true of the few extant1957works.Bythen, however,Louis'suse of
moresaturatedhues had led himto superimposeopaqueareas on stainedones(as he had done
in 1953).He then abandonedthe soak-staintechniquefor a full-blown painterlystyleof loosely
brushedas wellas pouredareasof opaquepaint,withdappled,dripping,and striatedpatternsof
brushstrokesin whichthe evidenceof the artist'shand is manifest.
Theimpressiongivenabovethat thesepicturesweremadein a periodof self-imposed exile
fromthe NewYorkart scene is essentiallytrue. In additionto his not seeingGreenberg,Louis
had personaldifferenceswith Nolandsometimein 1955,which isolatedhim from his other
principalsource of informationabout NewYorkpainting.But his was not a suddenretreat,
rather,an unwillingnessto developsuch introductionsand contactsas he had. Noneof this,
however,arguesfor the usefulnessof Louisbeingclassifiedas a Washington painter.Ofcourse,
he livedthere, and the distancefrom NewYorkdid have an importanteffect on his artistic
personalityand artistic development.Equally,the kindof earlierart he had been exposedto in
Washington musthaveinfluencedhis notionsaboutwhat constitutedan achievedpainting.The
so-calledWashington schoolofcolorpainters,however,developedon the basisofwhatLouis,and
then Noland,achieved;Louisreallyhad as little contactwith other artists in Washington as he
did withthose in NewYork.Andthe art that he did lookat wasNewYorkart.
Louismust have maintainedsomecontactwith what was happeningin NewYorkin the
mid-1950s, if onlythroughjournalsand magazinesand throughoccasionalvisitsto the cityto buy
paint.In anyevent,the repudiatedworksof this periodthat still existrelate quitecloselyto one
of the twomainstreamsof contemporaneous NewYorkpainting—if onlybecausetheyshare the
samesources.
WhenLouismadehis famousvisitwith Nolandto NewYorkin April1953and saw Frank-
enthaler'sMountainsand Sea, he could also have seen the controversialexhibitionof de
Kooning's paintingsin whichthe Womenserieswas unveiled.Accompanied by ThomasB. Hess's
article in Art Newsdocumentingthe two-yearstrugglethat led up to Woman,/, the exhibition
48 had enormousinfluence. It legitimized,as it were, representationalartists like Nell Blaine,
Jane Freilicher,FairfieldPorter,and Elainede Kooning,drawingthem further into the Tenth
Streetfold;it gavenew significanceto an artist like LarryRiverswhowas beginningto infuse
abstractlyconceivedpaintingswithrealisticdetails;and it evenprovokedsomepainters,among
them GraceHartiganand Jane Wilson,to shift fromabstractto representationalstyles.Hence
forth,not onlythe extensionof de Kooning-influenced gesturepaintingbut its consolidationin
figurationbecamea main-streampreoccupationin mid-1950s NewYorkart.
Theimportantpointhere is not merelythe shift fromabstractionto recognizableimagery,
althoughthat is worthrememberingin the lightof Louis'scontinuedcommitmentto abstractart
but, rather,the use of imagerywithinan obviously painterlycontext.Frankenthaler's
Mountains
and Sea, for example,containsdescriptiveimageryof a sort. However, her 1953exhibitionwhich
includedit wasjudgedlackingon the basisof interpretationsof her style.Herpaintingsseemed
thin, decorative,and "uninvolved." Both she and Louisappear to have been botheredby this
 21

implication, judging by what happened subsequently.Both moved toward more painterly ap

proaches in 1954and in so doing tended to a combination of optical field painting and tactile
gesture painting, to what was sometimes called Abstract Impressionism. It is to this second
mainstream of New Yorkmid-1950spainting that Louis'swork between the two Veilseries most
closely belongs.
A March 1956Art News article by Louis Finkelstein seems to have popularized the term
49 Abstract Impressionism, but it was certainly in use by 1954. It was used with reference to
Rothko'swork, but mainly for that of younger artists Philip Gustonand Resnick,and at times for
Frankenthaler, Mitchell, Dzubas, Ray Parker, and some others. Noland,it should be added, has
50 acknowledgedthat his own paintings of 1956-57were close to Abstract Impressionism. Insofar
as Impressionismitself is concerned, this trend was a response to the contemporaneousenthusi
asm for the late works of Claude Monet. The Museum of Modern Art purchased a Nympheas
(Water Lilies) mural painting in 1955;Greenberg's essay, "The Later Monet," which began by
acknowledgingthe Monet vogue, appeared in 1956.Finkelstein's article followedclosely on the
heels of Guston's early 1956exhibition of his new painting, which did adopt an Impressionist-
style brushstroke. It is clear, nonetheless, that Abstract Impressionismmore crucially responded
MorrisLouis.Untitled.1956.Acrylicresin on canvas,7' 10"x 9' 5". to a gradual revision of opinion on Abstract Expressionist field painting. Still, Rothko, and
Privatecollection Newmanwere very little appreciated until 1955and Greenberg'sseminal essay," American-Type'
51 Painting," and not until 1959 was Newman really taken seriously outside a small group of
52 admirers. However,a certain lightening of mood in gesture painting, which prepared for their
appreciation, was already being noticed by critics in 1954.
Reviewingthe 1954 annual exhibition at the Stable Gallery,Thomas B. Hess noted an
'Abstract Expressionist detente" marked by an absence of shock and violence, an increase in
53 figuration,and new "impulsestowards elegance." By late 1955,the first two exhibitions (at the
Stable Gallery) that attempted to summarize and give shape to the complexities of Second
Generation painting (Hess'sU.S.Painting: Some Recent Directions and KyleMorris'sVanguard
1955) were dominated by a relaxed, lyrical, and often coloristically infused form of gesture
painting, with an approximate half-and-halfdivision between abstract painters and those who
employed recognizable imagery of some kind. The year 1956saw the continued dominance of
lyrical gesture painting and its codificationin the narrower form of Abstract Impressionism.It
was with this identity—as a blend of the painterly application of the Abstract Expressionist
gesture painters and the color emphasis of the field painters—that Second Generation painting
gained broader public acceptance during that year.At the same time, however,it was beginning
to be obviouswithin the art scene itself that gesture painting was in decline. Hess'sreview of the
1956Stable GalleryAnnual deplored the "air of good taste and conformity"he found there. The
next year's Annual would be the last. By then, when the museumswere finally ready with their
synopticexhibitions,it was evident that the patterns had changed. In YoungAmerica 1957at the
Whitney Museum of American Art and Artists of the New YorkSchool: Second Generation,
organized by Meyer Schapiro with Leo Steinberg at The Jewish Museum,not only was there a
oppositeabove: MorrisLouis.Untitled.1954.Acrylicresinon canvas, clear plurality of lyrical over expressionist gesture painting but a preponderance of figurative
9' 8" x 6' §ZY.The LannanFoundation over abstract styles.
oppositebelow.MorrisLouis.Untitled.1955.Acrylicresinon canvas, This, however,turned out to be virtually the swan song of painterly figuration as such; The
6 8 x 52".CollectionDr.Ira Lewis,San Francisco Museumof ModernArt's 1959exhibitionNew Images of Man came too late to check its decline.
 22

In 1957Rivers and Robert Rauschenberg codified their novel forms of figurative painting, but
they eschewed full painterliness for a version of the soak-stain technique, to which Frank-
enthaler had returned the previous year. There had been, since about 1955,a slowlygrowing
interest in collageand assemblageart (whichfound its apotheosiswith the appearance of Jasper
Johns'sTargetwith Four Faces on the cover of the January 1%8Art News), and also in geometric
abstraction (Ad Reinhardt and EllsworthKellyboth had seminal exhibitionsin 1956).But it was
mainly lyrical abstraction, coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of Abstract
Expressionistfield painting, that occupiedcenter stage when, on November5, 1957,Louisopened
his first one-man show in NewYorkat the Martha Jackson Gallery.
This history is worth recounting for several reasons. First, it wouldseem, even from the few
repudiated paintings that remain, that Louis had independently worked through some of the
same issues that concerned NewYorkpainters, comingclose to a form of Abstract Impressionism
in 1956-57. This meant that his art was topical enough to gain a New Yorkshowing. He had
paintings accepted in a group exhibition at the Leo Castelli Galleryin May1957.Greenbergthen
mentioned him to Martha Jackson,who in turn mentioned him to the French critic, MichelTapie
de Ceyleran,who visited Washingtonand encouraged Martha Jackson to give Louisthe one-man
54 show, for which he wrote a catalogue introduction. It also meant, however,that Louis was
topical enough to realize, from his visits to NewYorkin 1957,that his art was fairly conformist,if
not indeed already retardataire .
Second, this history tells us that Louis was not alone in losing his way in the mid-1950s.
Frankenthaler, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, did the same. And since we know that Frank-
enthaler helped Louis hang his November1957 show, it is not unreasonable to suppose that
Louis'ssight of her new paintings, in which she had returned to the soak-stain technique, had a
PhilipGuston.TheClock.1956-57.Oilon canvas,6' 4" x 64^8".
The
comparable effect on Louisto that of Mountains and Sea four and a half years before. Museumof ModernArt,NewYork.Giftof Mrs.BlissParkinson
And third, Louis reestablished contact with NewYork,and with Greenberg,at the moment
by which many of the debates about stylistic priorities within the New York School had sub
sided—and before, it should be added, new debates about truly radical alternatives to Abstract
Expressionismhad properlystarted. I refer here to those concerningJohns and then Frank Stella
as well as to those that involvedLouis himself. Not only had Greenberg'sjudgments about what
was lasting in Abstract Expressionismbeen vindicated, but the artistic climate in NewYorkwas
such as to be equally receptive to what Louis had been doing as to what he was then doing.
Greenberg had lent the 1954Veil painting, Salient (page 87), to the one-man exhibition and
pointed out to Louis that it was far better than any of his later paintings. Subsequently,Louis
destroyed every painting he had access to that he had made since the 1954Veils.
A fourth, and final, reason for the preceding sketch of NewYorkpainting in the mid-1950sis
that it helps to position Louis historicallyat that moment late in 1957or early in 1958when he
returned to makingVeilsand thus finallyfound himself as a painter.

IT IS OFTENREMARKED that Louis constitutes a bridge between Abstract Expressionismand

55 the Color Field painting of the 1960s. However,the situation is by no means as simple as this.
The late date at which he consolidatedhis art—a full decade after Pollock—argues for the now
less accepted viewpointthat he does, after all, belongwith the ColorField painters, that he was,
in fact, a frustrated Abstract Expressionist who, early on, had an inkling of an alternative
 23

stylisticdirection,lost his way,and then foundhimselfin the late 1950sbetter preparedto

launchthe newdirectionof whichhe was the pioneer.Andyet, that willnot do either.Manyof
Louis'sinstincts were those of an AbstractExpressionist,despite all his reservationsabout
AbstractExpressionism, and remainedso, despitethe later stylisticchangesin his art. But he
doesnot fit comfortably with the SecondGenerationartists.Whilehis repudiatedpaintingsare
quintessentialSecondGenerationpaintings,they do not fit comfortablywithinhis oeuvre (as
Louis realized in repudiatingthem) as, say, Frankenthaler'snonstainedpaintings of the
mid-1950s fit in hers. (If anyonewas a bridgebetweenAbstractExpressionism and ColorField
paintingit was Frankenthaler.)Louis'smid-1950s paintingswere,rather,a lapseor a regression
fromwhichrenewalfinallycame;and whenit cameit was morea renewalof AbstractExpres
sionism—of First GenerationAbstractExpressionism —than a repudiationof it.
I do not want to exaggerateLouis'sconservatism. Yet,it is worth notingthat the nearest
parallel that exists for Louis'sparticularrelationshipto subsequentart is Newman,another
AbstractExpressionist whomadean extraordinaryinductiveleap to maturity,then went under
ground,as it were,to reemergeas a seminalfigurewhenthe 1950swerecomingto a close.That
parallel,however,is not all that near,for Newmanpresentshimselfas someonemore quickly
convincedabout what constitutedhis truth than Louiswas. Louis'spredicamentis far more
reminiscentof an earlymodernistlike Matisse,anotheralmostunwillinginnovatoruntil he got
into his stride, and one who soughtthroughinnovationmore to preservethan to opposethe
traditionsof the past. But,as I say,I do notwantto exaggerateLouis'sconservatism. Notonlydid
he remakeAbstract Expressionismin a way that had never previouslyexisted,he remade
abstractpaintingas he did so. Hewas simplythe firstartist to acceptall of the implicationsof a
MorrisLouis.
No.7."1957. Acrylic
resinoncanvas,7' 9)#'x 6' 8/2". purelyabstractart, recognizingas nobodyhad quite donebeforethat it was possibleto makea
Albright-Knox
Art Gallery,
Buffalo,NewYork.TheMarthaJackson superlativeabstract art withoutan illustratedsubject,withoutan a priori ideology,without
Collection,
1974
evidenceof the artist's personaltouch, withoutthe preconceptioneven of a single style—
workingfromthe verymediumof paintingitself.
Thisis not to say that subjectmatter,ideology, personality,and stylisticunity are absent
fromLouis'sart. Regardlessof the fact that he wouldnot talk aboutthe contentof his paintings,
the evidencethat they themselvesprovideshowshim to be as obsessively strivingfor a state of
illuminationunattachedto materialthingsas anyearlierAbstractExpressionist. Onlyhe sought
to do so with ever morereductivemeans,not out of anyprogramin this regardbut becausethe
logicof his art, whichis alsoto say,his inspiration,seemedto compelit. Theriskhe ran in terms
of publicacceptancewas that the impressivelovelinessof his art wouldnot be recognizedas a
metaphorof spiritualmeaningin the samewaythat the moresevereformsof AbstractExpres
sionismwere so recognized.Thisseemsto havebotheredhim at first, and helpsto accountfor
importantdifferencesbetweenthe firstand secondseriesofVeils,as we shallsee later.Butonce
he got into his stride,it becamea matterof indifferenceto himhowhis art wasreceived.Oneof
the main subjectsof what followsis that his art comprisesnot so mucha temptationof the
sensesas a deliverancethroughthe senses,whichis to sayno moreand no less than that is the
conditiontowardwhichthe best of modernpaintinghas aspired.
 25

1 2 "TRADITION . . . cannotbe inherited,"saysa renownedmodernessayon this subject,"andifyou

want it you must obtain it by great labor."Mid-waythroughthis century,that "great labor,"
insofaras paintingwas concerned,came to involvereimaginingwhat constitutes.the art of
Technicalinnovationand modernart; Impressionism, painting—not simplyproducingnewpaintings,but newpaintingswhoseverymethodofcreation
Cubism,and Pollock'salloverstyle;indebtedness reformulatedwhat the veryact of makinga paintingcomprised.
to Pollockand Frankenthaler;paintingmedium; Toan importantextent, this has alwaysbeen the case with truly originalpaintings,es
orientationof 1954Veils;workingmethods peciallymodernones.Theexpressionof newvisionshas oftennecessitatedtechnicalinnovation,
oldermethodsseemingincapableof authenticallycarryingthem. Equally,technicalinnovation
itselfhas been a meansof generatingnewvisions,especiallyin modernpainting.Whetherthe
inventionof Cubistcollageand Surrealistautomaticdrawing,to mentionthe twomostimportant
technicalinnovationsof twentieth-century art, werethe causeor the result of distinctivelynew
viewsofrealityis incapableofdemonstration. Butit is indisputablethat the realitiestheyconvey
are inseparablefromthe technicalinnovationswhichmanifestthem.
Technicalinnovationitselfcan bringwithit an extraordinarysenseofliberation.Collage,in
its very structure as well as in its materials,implieda distinctivelymodernbreak with the
narrativecontinuityofthe past;and automatisman equally,albeitdifferently, modernbreakwith
the past (including,in fact,the Cubistpast),a releasefromits rational,publicconcernsinto the
freedomof the inner mind.ForAmericanartists at mid-century, technicalinnovationcarrieda
comparablemeaning.AsAndrewForgehas writtenof Pollock,"Technicalfreedomwas a power
ful symbolfor other freedoms—freedomsfrom the dominionof Europeantaste, from the
2 pressuresof Europeanart history;and,by extension,fromhistoryitself."Louis,we know,spoke
to his studentsin comparableterms.Andyet, not onlyfreedomfromthe past is involvedhere (if
onlybecausesuch a thing is never truly possible).Moreimportantis what DavidSmithonce
called the artist's "visionaryreconstruction"of the past, throughwhich tradition is simul
3 taneouslybrokenand repaired. Thisis to argue,in effect,that the trulyoriginalartist, far from
breakingwith the past, breakswithpresentinterpretationsof the past, goesbackinto the past
not to reviveit but to renew it, makingfresh discoveryin the renewalof familiarvalues.
Technicalinnovationitself,if it is to have morethan noveltyvalue,whichis to say no value,
necessarilyrenewssomethingtraditionalto the art in whichit takesplacethat can no longerbe
convincingly expressedby traditionaltechniques.Obviously, technicalinnovationis antitradi-
tionalin that it bringsinto questionwhat had hithertobeen takenfor grantedas necessaryfor
securingthe establishedlimitsof a particularart, if not alwaysthe limitsthemselves.But even
here,traditionis defiedonlyto be reinvigorated.
I beginin this wayfor tworeasons.First, I willnecessarilybe discussingLouis'stechnical
innovationsand I want to make clear that neither his technicalinnovationsnor the novel
appearanceof his art whichresultedfrom these innovationsis intrinsicallyimportantto the
valueor the individualityof his art. In sayingthis, I followT. S. Eliot'sclassicargument(from
whichI quotedat the openingof this chapter) on the indispensability of the historicalsense,
namelythat whereaswe maybe temptedto thinkofan artist'sindividualachievementas distinct
from or contrastedwith the achievementpresent in his sources,if we approachhis work
"withouthis prejudicewe shalloftenfindthat not onlythe best, but the mostindividualparts of
his workmaybe those in whichthe dead poets, his ancestors,assert their immortalitymost
4 vigorously." This is to say that we shouldnot be lookingfor merelyresidualoriginalityin an
 artist's work.Wequite rightly do value an artist's differencefrom his predecessors as evidence of
his authenticity as an artist because it tells us that he is speakingfranklyand directly,and not in
impersonationof the past. At the same time, what we finallyvalue has less to do with new styles
or techniques and more to do with those primal conventionsor possibilitiesof an art that cannot
(like styles or techniques) be either invented or inherited; rather, the point of that "great labor"
of stylistic or technical innovationof which Eliot spoke is to renew those primal conventionsand
keep them alive.
The second reason for beginning this way is that while the new renews the old, it neces
sarily alters the existing order of the old as it does so. Eliot's brilliant insight leads to the
conclusionthat when we address truly original art we are obliged,in effect, to rewrite history to
some extent in order to accommodateit. In doingso, it is possibleto givethe impressionthat the JacksonPollock.One(Number31,1950).1950.Oiland enamelpaint
5/s". new,yet-to-be-createdwork forms the hidden agenda in what precedes it. That, however,is not on canvas,8' 10"x 17' 5 TheMuseumof ModernArt,NewYork.
Sidneyand HarrietJanis CollectionFund(byexchange)
an entirely wrong impression, for the form of the new work is, in fact, immanent in that of its
predecessors. More problematical, however,is that such a history might resemble either a thin
red line that, shunning contact with anything that might deflect its progress, leads only and
inexorablyto this particular new work, or a thick, dense wedge that compresses all of value in
the past into this particular new work. (And, of course, subsequent new work affects our
5 understanding of the particular new work we are addressing,and its history.) But even here, we
knowthat there have been moments in the history of art when the future of one of its mediums
did indeed seem to depend upon the possibilities compressedinto the work of one artist. Just as
Cezanne'swork had such a pivotal role for the future of French painting at the beginning of this
century, so Pollock's did for American painting at mid-century.The historical background to
Louis'sachievement, which follows,is principally addressed to an understanding of what Louis
meant when he said that Frankenthaler "was a bridge between Pollockand what was possible."

THE PRIMALCONVENTION of painting is that it is an art of surface. It became an art of flat

surfaces, but flatness, as such, is a liability of painting as well as its natural attribute, lb
emphasize flatness is to emphasize both the tangibility of a painting as an object and the single
property it shares with no other art. Flatness, however,can isolate the parts of a painting, leaving
them separately stranded across the plane surface. It, therefore, can threaten the integrity and
coherence of the separate pictorial world, creating the risk that a painting may seem no more
than a special kind of object in a world of objects. Illusionismof some kind has been, since the
Renaissance at least, the means of achieving pictorial coherence and thereby of enforcing the
apartness of the pictorial world, and of separating painting as such from the purely decorative
surface arts. Equally,however,if the form of the illusionismitself tended to implythat painting's
pictorial world was no more than a mirror of the external world, various "internal safeguards
6 against illusion" were there to draw attention to the fact that the painting was, after all, a
fabricated entity. Amongthose "safeguards"there were, for instance, unnatural color or propor
tions or details, quotations from earlier paintings, and compositionor drawing or facture that
neutralized the illusionism and emphasized instead the flat tangibility of the painted surface.
The painter, in fact, has alwayssought to provide sets of contradictory clues that simultaneously
achieve illusionismand suspend it.
Often, the very means by which the illusionism is achieved contains within it the pos-
 27

sibilities of its suspension. This was the case with fifteenth-century linear perspective. It was
also the case with the most realist of illusionisticart, the art of the Impressionists.In the classic
Impressionistpaintings of the 1870s,the illusion of realist, open-air space is providedby a thickly
painted modular pattern of brushstrokes whose facture and modularityare independent of what
they describe. Here, the contradictory clues carried in the very method of paint application tend
to separate surface and illusion,or the physicalbodyof the painting from the illusion it contains.
In Monet'slater paintings, this aspect is exaggerated by his use of closeup, more-or-lessevenly
accented fragments of nature, seen at an oblique angle whose difference from the frontality of
the surface of the painting itself pries art and illusion apart, as it were, to create works that are
simultaneouslyflat, material things and incorporeal illusions.
"The revelation he received became an Impressionist revelation," was how Greenberg
3/4" MorrisLouis.Russet. 1958.Acrylicresin on canvas, 7' 8 x described the impact on Louis of the work of Pollockand Frankenthaler. It was also, Greenberg
14' 51/2
". TheMuseumof ModernArt,NewYork.Givenanonymously
said, a "revulsionagainst Cubism."In effect, Frankenthaler showed Louis a way back to Impres
sionism through Pollock, a way that required him to discard those Cubist aspects of Pollock's
style that coexisted with the Impressionist ones. Alternatively,whereas Pollock'sinterpretation
of Cubismhad returned him to Impressionism,Louis'sinterpretation of Pollock,made possible by
Frankenthaler's interpretation, returned him to Impressionismmore completely.Either way,the
"bridge between Pollock and what was possible" provided by Frankenthaler led to the past as
well as to the future.
Impressionismis the seminal modern art of surface; its facture and modularity,which, in
turn, mean its avoidance of large shapes and strong tonal contrasts, emphasize the presence of
the surface as a continuous,spread-out sheet or skin to a greater extent, even, than had Edouard
Manet's 1860sstyle which preceded it. This being so, color as a natural property of surface
becomes more perspicuous. Not only is color freed from sculptural modeling,it is also freed to a
large extent from being read as part of a structure of tonal contrasts; but not entirely,because in
such a white-infused,close-valuedstyle, shifts of color tend also to read as shifts of tone, and
because any degree of spontaneity in color handling tends to reassert tonal contrasts by
disrupting the modularity of the surface and thereby the often precarious relationship between
the surface and the illusion. In fact, tonal contrasts are as natural and normative to Western
painting as is surface flatness; all the elements of painting's language, unless checked, tend to
7 suggestvolume. For all pre-modern colorists,certainly,mastery of dispersingtonal contrasts was
inseparable from mastery of color.And to the extent that the Impressionistsreduced the range of
tonal contrasts in their paintings, the risk they ran was of visual monotony.As long as the
illusions they provided referred to the natural world, the absence of depicted volumes in their
pictures was more than compensated by their opening onto that world remade as a locus of
visual pleasure. Colorreleased from the confines of drawn shapes to spread openly into aerated
fields could providea new version of nature as liberated from man's works.But when the illusion
became more generalized, descriptive more of dusky atmosphere than of clean open air, the
sacrifice seemed, to subsequent artists, too great; for what seemed to have been lost was the
traditional stability and gravity of painting. This has been the hazard of all later motif-free
abstraction based on the Impressionist model, Louis'sincluded. The developmentof Louis'sVeils
shows him to have been deeply concerned by it.
Louis'searly education as an artist certainly brought him into contact with Impressionist
 28

paintings. His residence in Washingtonsince 1947also meant that he had access to those at The
Phillips Collectionand the National Galleryof Art. But there is nothing Impressionistabout any
of his own early work. Even when he came close to Pollock's style in his Charred Journal
paintings of 1951,it was to ignore the Impressionistaspects of Pollockand exaggeratethe Cubist
aspects. That is to say,the interpretation of Pollock'sallover style offered in the Charred Journal
paintings is of Pollockas a painter of tonal contrasts.
This interpretation is by no means unwarranted, for Pollock's classic allover style of
1947-50is based on Cubist models.When the Cubists returned sculptural illusion to painting to
recover the traditional stability they believed the Impressionists had lost, they so emphasized
the methods of their illusionism,so exaggerated the contrasts of light and dark in their mono
chrome paintings that these rose to the surface as fractured patterns in a shallowfrontal space
rather than as whole volumes within a deeply hollowedspace—to such an extent, in fact, as
even to suggest a two-part reading of open, linear drawing givingthe identity of the motif set
against a painterly,illusionisticallymodeled ground. By1910,representation as a function of line,
and illusion as a function of modeling,were separated from each other, then were reassembled
to produce an image that contained them both. This two-part AnalyticalCubist structure of line
drawingand generalized shading—in particular, its polarizationby such later artists as Klee and
Miro so as to make line and surface plastically independent—formed the basis of Louis's
interpretation of Pollock in 1951.
In fact, line in Pollock'salloverpictures is not separable from surface in the way it is in Klee
and Miro, nor does it read as something tangible. Pollock'sclassic style did, in a sense, pick up
8 from where Picasso and GeorgesBraque had left AnalyticalCubism, but only after Pollockhad
worked through a version of the Synthetic Cubist style, and escaped it with the help of Surrealist
automatism. One of the reasons Pollock'sclassic allover style seems so utterly pivotal to its time
is that it is a great mid-century synthesis of currents deriving from collage, through Synthetic
Cubism, and from Surrealist automatism, itself a descendent of the organic, metaphorical
drawing of WassilyKandinsky,Jean Arp, and earlier Symbolistart. While other artists, notably
Klee and Miro, had overlaid surfaces of a tangibility and flatness derived from collage via
Synthetic Cubismwith freely generated, organic drawing,no previousartist had so bonded these
forms and currents as did Pollock.In doing so, he also combined the assertively constructional PabloPicasso."MaJolie."1911-12.
Oilon canvas,39% x 25%".The
idea of picture-makingthat collage had bequeathed to Synthetic Cubismwith the autographic, Museumof ModernArt,NewYork.Acquiredthroughthe LillieP Bliss
Bequest
symbol-makingemphasis of automatic drawing,thus producing an art that was both fabricated
and "materialistic," and removedfrom reference to the material world.
While making a series of pictures in the early to mid-1940sbased on schematically flat
totemic images, Pollock gradually began to eliminate the opaque, ultimately Synthetic Cubist
planes that constituted the images, and from their broken outlines, as well as from the hiero
glyphicsymbolswhich originallyoverlaidthe planes, he developedan alloverpainterly style that
was ultimately Cubist, but more palpable and more broadly drawn, hence tending to produce
works larger than Synthetic Cubist pictures could be without seeming thin and hollow.Despite
the power and urgency of these pre-drip pictures, they nevertheless achieved these qualities at
the expense of a certain feeling of claustrophobia.This is largely attributable to the fact that so
many marks had to be built up on the surface to achieve the desired balance of lights and darks,
and the extent of each mark was limited to the amount of paint that could be loaded onto the
 29

brush.The drip techniqueitself,achievedafter experimentation with squeezingpaint directly

fromthe tube, miraculously openedPollock'spictures,affordinga comparabledensityto that in
earlierworkbut withoutpackingor crowdingthe surface,and a comparablepalpabilitywithout
closingor sealingit off.
Fourprincipalaspectsof Pollock'salloverstyleof 1947-50were of crucialsignificancefor
Louis,oncehe recognizedthem. First,Pollock'sshift fromtotemicimage-making to his unique
versionof Surrealistautomatismdid not bringwith it anychangein his basicunderstandingof
drawing —both approachesare symbolicand metaphorical,not descriptiveor perceptual—but
it produceda crucialchangein the characterof his drawing.Whilethe symbolicdrawingof the
9 pre-drippictureswas "freedfromdelineatinga thing,and functionsas a thingin itself," its own
thingnessneverthelessalludesto that ofphysicalbodies.In the alloverdrippictures,bycontrast,
drawingis effectivelypurged of its denotivefunctionand figurativecharacter.Line neither
definesimagesnor can it be perceivedas the boundary,contour,or edgeof anything—not even
as a thingin itself.Becauseof its flowand interlacing,it can onlyrarelybe read as figureagainst
10 ground.In these respects, it is unlike any earlier form of drawing. Indeed,its very linear
characteris challengedin the completedwork,whichconstitutesan allover,unbrokenmolecular
continuumas luminousand disembodiedas the drawingitself is dense and tactile. Image,in
effect,has been softenedinto illusion,and drawingnamesnot thingsbut space.
Second,in Pollock'spre-drippictures,as in AnalyticalCubistpictures,line and modeling
wererelativelyindependent.Thatis to say,the twobasicfunctionsofdrawing,image-making and
the creationof sculpturalillusion,whichhad beenjoined in pre-modern,traditionaldrawing,
remainedseparatedand counterposed.Whilethe drip picturesdo negatetraditionaldrawing,
they also,however,recombinethe two traditionalfunctionsof drawingto the extent that line
JoanMiro.TheBeautifulBirdRevealing
theUnknown to a Pair of itselfis the agentof illusionism
—but a kindof illusionismfromwhichthe sculpturalis expelled.
Lovers.
1941.Gouacheandoilwashonpaper,18x 15".TheMuseum Pollock'smeans—black,colored,and aluminum"lines"of paint—are, in effect,the abstracted
ofModernArt,NewYork.
AcquiredthroughtheLillieRBlissBequest
and isolatedcomponentsof traditionalmodeling —shadow,color,and highlights —which he
recombinedin such a nonhierarchicalway as to dissipatethe sculpturalfrom illusionism,
atomizinglightsand darksand bunchingtogetherthe valuecontraststhat remainto the lighter
side of the tonal scale.This is aided by his reversalof traditionalhierarchiesof texture and
tonality:broad marks form the backgroundand are seen throughmicroscopicdetails,while
recessivespatialcoloris superimposed on solidfrontalcolor.Thus,the traditionalcomponentsof
11 backgroundand foregroundare reversed. TheCubists'separationof imageand illusionbrought
with it a sense of competitionbetweenrealityand its representation.The disengagedimages
uponthe surfacemakeconflictingclaimsuponourattentionas signsforobjectsin the worldand
as autonomouspainterlyunits. In Pollock'spre-drippictures,as in other Cubist-derived art,
there remainsa comparablesenseof painting'sownalienationfromthe veryrealityit seeksto
express.Whilethe drip picturesare, indisputably,extremelyradicalworks,they nevertheless
afforda feelingof traditionalharmonyregained,an almostremedialfeeling.Technically, it is
Pollock'suse of conflictingpictorialcluesto defeatthe Cubistseparationof imageand illusion
that accountsfor the senseof liberationfromconflictthat characterizeshis finestwork.
Third,Pollock'sliberationfromCubismreturnedhim to Impressionism: the regainedhar
monyof his workis, to an importantextent,an Impressionistharmony.Thealloverpicturesare
not compositional, and eschewspecificshapesfor a continuumof painterlinessachievedby a
30

modularmethodof paint applicationthat developsacrossthe surface,its close-valuedcolor

informedbya "slow"innerlight.Atthe sametime,however, the relationshipof illusionismto the
alloverpainterlysurfacein Pollock'sworkis verydifferentfromImpressionism. For a start, the
alloversurface"image"is difficultto locatespatially.If anything,it seemsto hangjust in front of
the resistantplaneof the canvas(as befittingits Cubistorigins),causingthat planeto seemto
dissolveinto transparency.But the drawnskeinsdo havesubstance,they are palpable,so that
the planarityof the surfaceis restoredin paint.Thatis to say,as in Impressionism, the material
continuityand allovernessof the surface is establishedas paint. However,as in Analytical
Cubism,the surfacecomprisesan openlycomposedpaintedimageheld in tensionagainstthe
literalbodyof the picture,its actualflatnessand its geometricalshape.It reallydoesseemas if
Pollockbeganwiththe resistantflat surfaceof SyntheticCubism,then wentbackto the collage
idea of multiplelayeringand physicalconstruction,but did so usinga versionof openAnalytical
Cubistdrawingderivedfromthe morerelaxedand spontaneously applieddraftsmanshipof the
abstractSurrealists,therebyreachinga kindof illusionismand surfacetreatmentreminiscentof
Impressionism but withoutbeingcompletelyImpressionist. Theverysynopticnatureof Pollocks
stylemadeit a rich sourceoffuturepossibilities.However, the exactnessand individuality of the
synopsismadeaccessto it verydifficult.
Fourth,andfinally,Pollock'sverymethodofcreatingthesepictures,through"collaboration
withhis materials,in particularthroughpouredskeinsofpaint,allowedhimto makelarger,and
henceseeminglylesstangibleand enclosedpicturesthan hitherto.It alsoallowedpictureswith
a newemotionalvividness,not expressionistic but concentrated,not merelyfree but frank and
candid,as if emotionhas been conveyedwith the least possibleinterferenceof the medium,
whichis alsoto say,as if the emotionweregeneratedin the mediumitself.
All these thingswere crucialto Louis.But it was not until Pollock'sstyle changed,and
Frankenthalerfurther developedand alteredit, that Louisgainedaccessto anyof them.
Frankenthaler'sMountainsand Sea, whichso impressedLouisand Noland,drewpart of its
inspirationfrom Pollock's1951-52picturesdone in thinned black enamelon raw canvas.In
these,he repudiatedthe "nonfigurative" drawingof the alloverpictures,as wellas their unifor
mityof articulation(andwithit, of illusionisticspace),to makewhatare indisputablyimagesset
againstgrounds.However, sincethe lineardrawingthat composesthe imagesis stainedinto the
canvas surface,the lack of textural change between imageand groundretains a sense of
alloverness.But now,allovernessis givenin the visiblycontinuousmaterialityof the canvas
surface,rather than, as previously,in that of the paint appliedto the surface.Thisis whythe
paint as suchis ableto departfromallovernessto createmorevariedand specificconfigurations
withoutcompromising the evennessof pictorialintensityacrossthe surfacewhichPollockhad
previouslyachieved.Whatis more,staininggaveallovernessand flatnessin one act. Staining
itselfassertedthe flatnessof painting,and thereforeits nonillusionary, tangiblecharacter.This
meant that illusionismcouldbe givengreater sway;and Pollock'sdrawing,both in its image-
characterand, particularly,in its exaggeratedtonal contrasts,becameless localto the surface
than before.In someof the morespare pictureswherethe thinned-downenamelspreadsfrom
linesinto areas,the limitsofthese areas refuseto be read as boundaries,seemingrather to have
been generatedfrominside;as a result,they refuseto be read as drawn,and the picturesthat
contain them seem as devoidof tactility as the alloverdrip pictures,while possessingan
 31

extraordinaryopennessof surface—not paintedsurfacebut the literalsurfaceofpaintingitself.

Theimportanceto LouisofMountainsand Sea layin the accessit gavehimto Pollockas
wellas in its ownuniquecombinationofcolor,facture,and drawingor design.Frankenthalerhad
seizedon the fact that onceareas, not lines,werecreatedby staining,colorcouldbe givennew
prominencein a Pollock-derived style,indeed,that coloritselfrather than tonality(variationsof
hue rather than of lightand dark) couldbecomethe organizingstructuralcomponentof picture-
makingin a newway.Bydilutingthe paint morethan Pollockhad, Frankenthalerwas able to
soak thin washesof color into the surface,thus literallyidentifyingfigureand groundand,
thereby,allowingcolorto spread uninterruptedlyacrossthe surfaceas pure hue (evenwhen
shaded),unimpededby the tactile associationsthat figure-ground divisionsnormallycreate.
Giventhe thinnessofthe paint,the whitenessof the surfacebreathesthroughthe color,bringing
depth to its flatness.It also functionsas color itself, and givesto the colorssoakedinto it
somethingof its own disembodiedform, creatingan open surface,like that of the 1951-52
Pollocks,but coloristicallyleveleddownin an Impressionist, close-valued,and seeminglyallover
space,likethat ofthe 1947-50Pollocks.Andsincethe colorinMountainsand Sea formsimages
as it floodsthe surface,that paintingalsocombinesthe figurativequalityofthe 1951-52Pollocks
with the spread out tonal homogeneityof the 1947-50Pollocks.Unlikeanythingin Pollock,
however,and equallyinfluentialfor Louis,is the waythat the colorinMountainsand Sea seems
to expandvisuallyand open out acrossthe surface;it seemsslowerand more sensualthan
Pollock'senergeticallydrawnskeins,thoughequallyimmediateas physicallymanipulatedpaint.
"Thequestionwe alwaysdiscussed,"remembersNolandof his talkswith Louis,"waswhat
to makeart about.Wedidn't want anythingsymboliclike say,Gottlieb,or geometricin the old
sense of Albers.The AbstractExpressionistspaintedthe appearanceor symbolof action,the
depictionofgesture.Wewantedthe appearanceto be the resultofthe processof makingit—not
12 necessarilyto looklike a gesture,but to be the result of real handling." In this respect too,
Frankenthaler"wasa bridgebetweenPollockand whatwas possible."

ASNOTED in the precedingchapter,the earliestof Louis's1954Veilsmaywellhavebeen those

wherehe usedthe stain techniqueto produceKline-likeand then de Kooning-like broadplanes:
JacksonPollock.
Number3, 1951{Imageof workswhich (to use Noland'sterminology)give "the appearanceor symbolof action, the
Man).1951.Enamelon canvas,56 x 24". depictionof gesture."The de Kooning-like Terrainof Joy, in particular,givesthe appearanceof
Collection
PeggyandRichardDanziger havingbeen made from swathesof intense colorflungdownonto the canvasin overlapping
patterns,the formof the swathesreflectingthe movementof the artist'sarm and hand,and the
overlapping of the swathesreflectingthe sequential,temporalmethodof the painting'screation.
Veilsof this kind clearlyreflect Louis'sknowledgeof the layeringtechniqueof Pollock's
alloverpicturesas wellas of Frankenthaler'ssoak-stainmethod.However, becauseLouisseized
uponthe possibilitiesof heightenedcolorhe foundin Frankenthaler,he was forcedto compose
in termsofthe tonalcontraststhat the use ofareas ofhigh-intensity colorinevitablyprovides.As
a result,the layeringapproachdid not achievethe opticalintermingling ofparts it did in Pollock
but remained,rather,a formof Cubistlayering.Furthermore,it defeatedthe possibilityof the
canvasbeingread as a coordinatingelementin the wayit did in Frankenthaler's work,wherethe
colorsare placedsidebysideand where,therefore,eachseparatecolorwesee is identifiedwith
the canvas,whichruns throughthem,as it were.In Louis's,bycontrast,the canvasstill reads if
 32

not quite as a traditional ground then as somethingtransparent; the imageryis simplyless local
to it than in Frankenthaler's work.
Louis'screation of the fullyrealized 1954Veilsinvolvedtwo related insights into the work of
Pollockand Frankenthaler. First, he recognizedthat the coherence of both Mountains and Sea
and Pollock's allover pictures depended upon the fact that although they were composed of
distinct colors the effect was not what might be called Fauve color (or the juxtaposition of
intense hues). Pollock'swork, as we have seen, appears to be monochromatic,informed by a
disembodiedinterior light. Mountains and Sea is a rather pale picture, of delicate, washed-out
colors kept close in value to the color of the canvas, and also luminous in effect. The second
recognition concerned the side-by-side arrangement of Frankenthaler's color, and also the
awareness that Pollock's superimposed webs of paint were layered extremely frankly—re
petitively,in fact. Close-valuedcolor and side-by-sideor repetitive methods of paint application
both have a commonmodern source in Impressionism.And this is part of what Greenberg meant
when he said that the revelation Louis received from Pollock and Frankenthaler became an
Impressionist revelation.
GeorgiaO'Keeffe.
EveningStar, III. 1917.Watercoloron paper,9 x
Louis was able to combine Pollock's layering and Frankenthaler's side-by-sidecolor jux 11%".The Museumof ModernArt,NewYork.Mr.and Mrs.DonaldB.
tapositions by pouring waves of thinned-down, transparent paint of different hues down the StrausFund
surface of the canvas "so as to mute their separate intensities into so many neutral and
13 ambiguous shades of a single low-keyedcolor" —in effect, by working, like Pollock, from
repetitivelysuperimposedcolors, but, like Frankenthaler,with areas not lines of color laid down
side-by-side,overlapped, and then veiled over. The result is pictures wherein automatically
generated drawingcreates a holistic image,as in Pollock,but with a heightened, richly nuanced
color made possible by virtue of Frankenthaler's example.Different,however,from either Pollock
or Frankenthaler, is Louis'sconception of painting as the creation of floodedhomogeneousfields
of color, identified with the surface and developedacross the surface without any underpinning
in the form of a tonal armature. The openness of his work is not the ultimately Cubist openness
of Pollockor Frankenthaler, where imaginaryspace is articulated, reticulated even, by a pattern
of lights and darks; rather, it is the spreading, surface openness of an ultimately Impressionist
conception of painting as an unconstricted, aerated, colored field.
"The crucial revelation he got from Pollockand Frankenthaler,"Greenberg said, "had to do
with facture as much as anything else."He continued: "The more closelycolor could be identified
with its ground, the freer would it be from the interference of tactile associations; the way to
achieve this closer identification was by adapting watercolor technique to oil and using thin
paint on an absorbent surface. Louis . . . [leaves] the pigment almost everywherethin enough,
no matter how many different veils of it are superimposed,for the eye to sense the threadedness
and wovennessof the fabric underneath. But 'underneath' is the wrong word. The fabric, being
soaked in paint rather than merely coveredby it, becomes paint in itself, color in itself, like dyed
cloth: the threadedness and wovennessare in the color.Louis usually contrives to leave certain
areas of the canvas bare. ... It is a gray-whiteor white-graybareness that functions as a color in
its own right and on a parity with other colors;by this parity the other colors are leveled downas
it were, to become identified with the raw cotton surface as much as the bareness is. The effect
conveysa sense not only of color as somehowdisembodied,and therefore more purely optical,
14 but also of color as a thing that opens and expands the picture plane."
 33

Thereare plentyof modernprecedentsfor the adaptationof a watercolortechniqueto oil

painting,and it is not necessaryto go into them all here. Cezanne,obviously, is the most
importantpioneer in this regard, and it is relevant to knowthat Louiswas interested in
Cezanne'swatercolors,whoseinfluenceon the 1953paintingTrellisis apparent.He was even
moreinterestedin Matisse,whoalso consistentlyused thin paint in order to excludeanything
that mightdetractfromthe sheervisibilityof color.Andit is temptingto see Louisas part ofthe
distinctlyAmericanwatercolortraditionthat includesartists like GeorgiaO'Keeffeand John
Marin,whoseworkhe couldhaveseen at ThePhillipsCollection,as wellas in relationto Klee,
whosework certainlyaffected Noland'swhen Louisand Nolandfirst met. It is also worth
mentioningat this point that Louis'stechnique bears comparisonwith a form of painting
conceptuallyoppositeto the intimacyof watercolor,namelyfrescopainting.Thephysicalbond
ingof colorto a whitesurfacethroughtintinghas longbeena methodof accentuatingits purity,
and alsoof achievingthe difficultcoherenceof a large-size,muralistart—as earliermodernists
interestedin such an art (or in an art that approximatedits effects),amongthem Monetand
Matisse,had alreadyrealized.The soak-staintechniquethat LouisadaptedfromFrankenthaler
Morris
Louis.Untitled.
1954.
Acrylic
resinoncanvas,6' V2"x 8' Z2
TheLannanFoundation combinesthese oppositetraditions:the first, intimate,tending naturallyto lyricism,highly
dependenton the artist'sindividualtouch,and havingthe candorand immediacyofa sketch;the
second,public,tendingto the epic and the monumental,involvingsuppressionof the artist's
touch,and havingthe distancedaloofnessof architecturaldecoration.Onewayof distinguishing
Louis's1954Veilsand those he beganin 1958is to saythat he shiftedfromthe first towardthe
secondof these traditions.
Louisreferredto the 1954Veilsas manifesting"the continuityof simplepattern and slow
motion."Thismightbe paraphrasedin the following way:Thecomponentsof the simplepattern,
namelythe individual,repeated"reeds"of the fan-shapedimage,are usuallyclearlyexpressed,
but as the eyereadsacrossthem,the continuityof unbrokencolorbothaffirmsthe wholenessof
the pattern and causes it to seem to expandin slowmotion,like the openingof a fan. The
continuityof the surfaceis achievedbythe pouringof colorinto color,bythe darkveilingon top
of the purer hues, and by the stain techniqueitself,whichdematerializesmass and drawing
becauseit allowsthe surfaceto releaselight.Thedisembodiment, bareness,and opennesswhich
Greenbergdescribedas characteristicof Louis'suse of the staintechniquealsocontributeto the
sense his pictures provideof being freed from material substance.Their linear quality is
15 subsumedas it is in Pollock'spaintings,but here in a poetic sfumato effect, even more
abstractedand generalizedthan Pollock'satomizedspacebecausethe surfaceitselfis identical
withthe spaceevokedby color;and it is coloritselfmorethan paint that seemstransient,fluid,
and—organically —to breatheand expand.
Noland,we remember,said that he and Louis"wantedthe appearanceto be the result of
the processof makingit—not necessarilyto looklike a gesture,but to be the result of real
handling."Theappearanceof Louis'sVeilssuggeststhat bythis Nolandmeantthat their pictures
shouldnot be merelya record,or depiction,of howthey are made.It is not just a matter of
havingthe appearanceof the paint recall the actual processof paintingbut, rather,that the
appearanceof the picture shouldreflectthe modalitiesof the paintingprocess,its forcesand
movements,flowand direction,growthand becoming.
Thesemodalitiesmightbe said to formthe subjectof all Louis'sVeilsjust as the symbolic
 34

releasefromthe boundedand the substantialinto an illuminatedstate of the immaterialmight

be saidto formtheir content.Thisis an unsatisfactory wayofputtingit, implyingas it doesthat
these aspectsare separable,and that the subjectof Louis'spaintingis circumscribed byhis pure
involvement withpaintingwhilethe (undemonstrable) contentexistsmorein the realmof idea.
Whileit is true that, in onesense,the subjectof suchpaintingis painting,it is not,as JackFlam
has pointed out, "in the usual sense of 'art for art's sake' with which this phenomenonis
sometimesconfused,but in the sensethat the subjectmatter of such paintingshas to do with
processor becoming,and since the act of paintingis paintingitselfs mosttypicalor inherent
process,the processof paintingbecomesthe mostintegraland naturalmetaphorthat painting
16 itselfcan use." Additionally, the modalitiesof paintingthat Louisuncoveredand exploredin his
picturesnecessarilyevokeour experienceof the worldoutsidepainting.Louis'sVeilsdo not, of
course,reproduceourviewof nature,but theyconfirmit. Theydo not enter the worldofphysical
things, but they do remindus what the experienceof that worldis like—at least, howwe
rememberthat experience,abstractedfromthe physicalthingsof the worldthat engenderit.
This takes us from the "subject"to the "content"of Louis'spictures,for the layersthat each
occupiesare as fusedand continuousas those in the picturesthemselves.
Louis'smedium,it shouldbe noted at this point,was an oil-miscibleacrylicresin paint
calledMagna,whichcontainspigment,an acrylicresin vehicle,and smallamountsof bodying
and stabilizingagentsto keepthe pigmentand resinbonded.It can be thinnedwithturpentine
or with additionaldosesof resin.Theturpentinemethodtendsto createa matte surfaceand, if
excessively used,to causeseparationof the pigmentin the formof surfacegranules;the use of
resin creates a moreglossysurface.Louisused this paint in tube formprior to 1960,when its
manufacturer,LeonardBocour,changedthe formula,addingbeeswaxto giveit morebody.Louis
and Noland(whoalsopaintedwithMagna)foundthis newpaint difficultto use,so in April1960
they had Bocourmake a speciallyconstitutedform of Magnain galloncans. This contained
pigmentplus a half-and-half mixtureof resin and turpentine,of a consistencysimilarto maple
syrup.Whenmakingthe Veilsand other paintingsbeforeApril1960,Louishad establishedthe
consistencyof the paint himself,just as he had establishedthe degreeof absorbencyhe desired
forthe canvassurface;in the formercase he controlledthe amountand proportionofturpentine
and resin thinner,in the latter the amountof sizing.(Allof the 1954Veilsand onlysomeof the
1958-59Veilsare on sizedcanvas.After1959he abandonedsizingentirelyin orderto allowthe
colorto penetratethe surfacemorethoroughly.)
I draw attention to the technicalpropertiesof the paint to aid in understandingthe
appearanceof the Veils,includingthe detailingthey contain.Louisavoidedsmall-scaledrawn
incident,especiallythe drips, splatters,and other signsof "accident"that characterizemany
AbstractExpressionistpaintings.Generally,he seemedinterestedin effectinga sense of paint
17 not havingbeen drawnor acted on in any way. Nevertheless,the surfacesof the 1954Veils
revealan extraordinarilyrich formof detailingwhichis not accidentalin anyother sensethan
that Louiscouldnot predict it. But he could,and did, direct it, and he used this detailingto
createa particularlyintimaterelationshipbetweenthe closeupsurfacesof theseVeilsand their
distancedwholenessas images,and as pictures.
I refer here first of all to the sense of detail producedby the drawingof the swathesof
poured paint. I noted above that their linearity is both manifestedand subsumedin the
 35

wholenessof the surface.Thisshouldnowbe rephrasedto read:the manifestlinearityof mostof

the 1954Veilsaffirmsthe wholenessof their surfaces.The fanlikestriationsbind the insideto
the outsideof the veil shape so that the distancedapprehensionof that shape is confirmed,
closeup,by sightof its modularcomponents.Moreover, in one of these Veils,Intrigue (page95),
the verticalityof the striationsadditionallybindsthe insideof the veilshapeto that of the side
edgesof the canvasshape.Here,the processof creatingan imagecoalescesnot onlywith the
imageitselfbut withthe pictorialrectanglein whichthe imageexists.Thisparticularaspect of
Intrigue was later developedin Louis'ssecondseriesof Veils.Butin manyof the 1954Veils,and
most specificallyin Intrigue, the expressedverticalityas well as linearityof the swathesof
drawnpaint fulfillsanotherfunction:it affirmsthe orientationofthesepictures,the directionin
whichtheyhang.
Thisis a controversialtopicfor the reasonthat Louishimself,in Greenberg'swords,"felt
18 that his particularkind of art allowedfor a newkindof latitudehere." Greenbergpointedout
that while Louismade a definitedecisionabout whichside was the top before exhibitinga
picture,he wasreluctantto commithimselfto it bysigningthe picture,beingreadyto allowfor
the possibilitythat he mightlater changehis mind.Furthermore,"Hewaswillingevento allow
othersto experimentwithhis picturesin this respect,in anycase he felt that if a paintingof his
was goodenoughit wouldstand up no matter how it was hung."Greenbergprefacedthese
commentsby the remarkthat this was the one aspect of his art aboutwhichLouiswas at all
permissive.
Louis's"particularkindofart" did allowforlatitudewithrespectto orientationbecausethe
orientationof his pictureswas not establishedbeforehe beganworkingon them, nor did his
workingon them necessarilyestablishtheir orientation.Sincehe did not work on stretched
canvasesor an easel, or even on flat canvasesbut, rather, on canvaseslooselytacked to a
stretcher,whichhe manipulatedto controlthe flowofpaint,it wasonlyeither in the creationof
the pictureor whenit wascompletedthat the questionof orientationarose.Thesameis true of
the decisionsthat Louishad to makeaboutexactlywhatarea of canvasconstitutedthe picture.
He did not proceed,as Nolandand Jules Olitskidid later,by selectingthe picture,as it were,
fromwhathad happenedwhilehe waspainting,but rather,likePollock,byfindingwaysto make
19 a particularthing happen. Nevertheless,the precise size and shape of a picture were only
finallyestablishedwhenthe processof paintingwas overor,rather,the establishmentof these
constitutedthe finalpart of that process."Heagonizedoverthe sizeand shapeof his pictures,
and did so all the morebecausehe wouldfindhis wayto the nuancesof size,scale and shape
20 largelyin the processof finishinga painting." Establishingthe orientationof the picturewould
alsoseemto havebeen part of the processof finishingit, and in the majorityof cases it seems
that this was so.
Louis,as Greenbergexplained,was not dogmaticaboutthe orientationof his picturesand,
while,in the case of the Veils,he establishedbottom-edgeanchoringas normative,he nev
erthelesswas willingto depart fromthe norm,on occasion,if a particularpaintingseemedto
demandit. That norm,moreover, was onlyfullyestablishedwhenhe beganthe secondseries of
Veils,whichconsolidatedthe verticalemphasisof the 1954Veils.Andverticality,whileobviously
precludingsucha picturebeinghungon its side,doesnot itselfdictatethat it be hungwiththe
paint area anchoredto the bottom.Whatdoesdictateit is the sensethat the forceof gravityon
 36

the verticallypouredpaint leadsto that direction.It was the acknowledgment of gravity—and,

importantly,its opposition —as muchas of verticalityin the secondseries of Veilsthat estab
lishedtheir normativedirection.
In the first series,there are ten picturesthat havemainlyverticalor fan-shapedstriations.
Ofthese,eightare signedor initialedon the surfacebyLouis,and oftheseeight,the inscriptions
on only two (one of them Intrigue) indicatethat they shouldbe hung with the paint area
21 anchoredat the bottom. The others,amongthemAtomicCrest, Iris, Salient, and Pendulum
(pages85-89,93),are clearlymarkedfor hangingwiththe imagedescendingfromthe top edge.
Ofthese,Iris, Salient, andPendulumare paintingswhoseverticalityof internaldetailingis less
pronounced(the latter two,in fact,achievingsucha fusionofpoured"lines"as to read almostas
singleflat planes)andwhosepaint areas are sharplycut throughbythe framingedges.In these
cases, an "upside-down" hangingsoftensthe abruptnessof that cut and lightensthe holistic
image,preventingit frombeingread as a flat planestandingagainsta ground.Intrigue is also
sharplycut at its base and, therefore,couldbe hung"upsidedown"withoutsufferingfor it. But
becauseof its expressedverticaldetailingit doesnot need to be hungthus, as do Salient and
Pendulum.The minimizedinternalverticalityin Salient andPendulum(whosetitle describes
its orientation)meansthat if theywere,in fact, hungwiththe paint anchoredat the base,they
wouldseemnot to respondto the forceof gravitybut to opposeit. It is the internaldetailingand
not the imageas a wholethat acknowledges the forceof gravity.Indeed,the imageas a whole
alwaysseemsto opposeit. In moretypical,bottom-anchored Veils,the imageas a wholeseemsto
mushroomup, whilethe internalverticaldetailingdescends.This contradictionin readingis
crucial to the more typicalVeils,for gravityis therebysimultaneously acknowledged in the
detailingof these picturesand opposedin their wholeveil images.Part of the extraordinary,
concentratedbeautyofSalient andPendulumis the wayin whichtheseaspectsare conflatedby
beingreversed;the imagedescendsas if in responseto gravity,but we see fromthe detailingof
the paint that gravityis opposed.
Atomic Crest wouldseem to disprovemy contentionthat vertical detailingdictates a
normativehanging,for this, too,is markedfor hangingthe otherway.In this case,however,the
fact that the crest of denserpaint whichgivesit its title (formedby the paint puddlingat the
base ofthe pour)is entirelyinsidethe frameofthe picturegivesthe impressionthat the vertical
detailingis tangiblyattachedto that crest, even that it growsup out of it. An "upside-down"
hanging,therefore,both liberatesthe imagefromgravity(byopposingthe poureddirectionsof
the paint) and affirmsthe forceof gravity(because,thus turned,the pouringsactuallylookas if
they descendfromthe crest at the top),whilealsotendingto alleviatethe senseof illusionas
existingbehind the framed surface,causedby Louisframingthe surfacewithin the painted
surfaceof the veil.
I dwellon these detailsnot onlyto understandwhatLouis'sintentionsseemto havebeenin
makingthese 1954Veilsbut also becausethey aid understandingof what becamenormativein
the secondseriesofVeils(pages97-121).TheyexplainwhyLouisturned"upsidedown"the more
planarand uniformlypaintedof the so-calledItalianVeils(pages119-121) and whyhe similarly
turned the paintingcalledSaraband (page111),in orderthat the verticaldetailingmighthang
froma sequenceof puddledmarkslikethe crest ofAtomicCrest.Moreimportantly, theyexplain
suchthingsas whyLouisgenerallyneitherleft entirelyvisiblethat area of puddledpaint (as in
 AtomicCrest) nor cut it entirelyoff(as inIntrigue), but cut throughit to forma base intowhich
the verticaldetailingfallsand fromwhichthe imagerises;whyhe generallyemphasizedvertical
detailingto bindit to the shapeof the picturesupport,at timesin concertwiththe shapeof the
veilimage,at timesin contrastwithit; andwhyhe subsequentlyleft bare canvasaroundthe veil
imageso as to be able to playoffthe drawingof these three elementsagainsteach other and in
orderto opposethe massof the veil imagewith the illusionof its detailedinterior.
Noneof these detailsis in any sense subsidiaryto the main thrust and impactof Louis's
pictures:togetherthese detailsconstitutetheir thrust and impact.For all the automatismand
enforced"impersonality" of his methods,the structureas wellas the qualityof his art depend
veryheavilyindeedon the nuancesof handling.
The drifts of granularpigmentthat lie on the surfaceof manyof the 1954Veilsare very
muchto the pointin this regard.Theyare not accidentalaccumulations causedbyLouis'shaving
madea mistakein mixinghis paint. (Theyare so ubiquitousthat his choiceto sizethe canvasof
thesepicturesand to thin the paint excessively withturpentineratherthan resinmusthavebeen
madewith the aim of producingthem.)Neitherare theyjust secondarypleasures,irrelevantto
the distanced,primaryobservationof the paintings.Theyare devicesto hold the eye to the
surface(lest the disembodiedillusionseemto retreat beneathit) and to havecoloroccupythe
surfaceas well as soak into it. Theytherebyperform,closeup,a functionsimilarto what the
visibleedgesofthe veilimageandthe exposedcanvasaroundit do at a distance:holdthat image
to the surface.Thus,"whatis seen from a distanceis confirmedby closerinspection;this is
associatedwith the fact that wheneverthere is any delay ... in total comprehension[of a
22 picture],the delayis so slightthat Louis'sprocedureis closeto Impressionistsimultaneity."
That is to say,the imageis givenwholeand at once,and the detailing,whileindeedenriching
what is seen froma distance,moreimportantlyconfirmsit. Thesamereasonlies behindLouis's
decisionto whitenwith thinned-downpaint the canvasmarginsof someof the 1954Veils.At a
distance,the soft whitenessaccentuatesthe vividnessof the veil image,as well as its color;
closeup,it has a slightlygrittyqualitysimilarto that of the colorof the imageitself.

THEWAY THATCOLOR is carriedin and dispersedbythe liquidityof the mediumis intrinsicto

the structurallogicas wellas the beautyof the 1954Veils.Thepastel-likedelicacyof surfaceof
Salient and Pendulum, the dryer,moreastringentqualityof Intrigue, the looserand languid
voluptuousnessof Iris are features particular to these individualpaintingsand mark their
individualityas separatelyconceivedexplorationsof the capacityof open colorto conveyan
extraordinaryrangeof emotion.It is as if they haveseparate,uniquesubjects.Theycomprisea
series,but not quite in the sensethat Louis'slater picturesdo.Indeed,it was makingthis series
that led Louisto the discoveryof true seriality,where individualpicturesare instancesof a
23 medium,or an automatism,somehowmorepowerfulthan anyone of them.
In Louis'sbronzeVeilsof 1958,the pictureshavemorerestrictionsin common.Thecolorof
these pictures,the shapingof their images,their internaldrawing,even Louis'swillingnessto
acceptthe eight-footwidthof the canvasas their givenheight,are all evidenceof his limiting
and therebyintensifyinghis pictorialvocabularyin orderto get intoa veinofworkingthat could
producenot onlymorepicturesbut moreconsistentlyrealizedpictures.For it was by isolating
fromthe 1954Veilsthe componentshe foundessentialthat he establishedthe more uniform
 9
38

seriesofVeilsin 1958.Thepicturesin that seriesare totallyindividualnot in spiteofbut because

of the restrictionsimposedby the series; any differencefrom one picture to the next is
heightenedbytheir similarityandproducesan entirelynewpicture,albeitofthe same"subject,"
as it were.Withthe 1954Veils,eachnewpicturehas individuality becausewe sensethat it might
haveturned out differentlyif workedin anotherway,mighthaveturned out to havea different
subjectif workedin anotherway.It is individualin spite of the restrictionsimposeduponit by
the series,for its individuality
is the individuality
ofits subjectmatter,and that is not imposedby
the guidingand controllingforceof the seriesas it is in the later Veils.
The1954Veilsmoreproperlycomprisea set ofvariationsor a cycleof paintingsthan a true
series.Eachis an Impressionist"instantaneity"and each is descriptiveof a uniquesubject.But
to makeeach paintingan instantaneityis to generatea successionof instantaneities,and to
providefor them a commonsubjectis to providea stable and consistentstructure for their
creationand alsoto free their creationfromsubjectmatter.
But, as in Monet'sseries,the one subjectin its multipleversionsbecameactuallymore
noticeableas subjectmatter becauseof its repetition.And,againas in Monet'sseries,it was a
subjectspecificallychosen(or discovered)becauseit confirmed(or uncovered)what had been
quintessentialaboutthe earlierpaintingswitha varietyofsubjects,includingtheir instantaneity.
Greenbergis correctwhenhe writesthat the configurations in Louis'spicturesare not meantas
imagesand do not act as images,and that "Louisis not interestedin veilsor stripesas such,but
24 in verticalityand color." At the sametime,the Veils(and later the Unfurledsand Stripes),as
restrictedimagesor subjects,are metaphorsof a sort of the preciseaspectsof paintingto which
Louis'sambitionswere directed.
It is importantat this point to be clear about the fact that neither the consolidationof
serialityin the secondset ofVeilsnor the consolidation of Louis'sart as a wholethat this series
representsnecessarilymakesthe paintingsof this secondset of Veilssuperiorto those of the
first. The paintingsof the first set are the most traditionalof Louis'smatureworks.In many
respects,theyare the mostrewardingof his matureworksbecauseof,not in spiteof,their being
the mosttraditional.
It is alsoimportantnot to exaggeratethe differencesbetweenthe first and the secondsets
ofVeils.Thepaintingsofthe firstset are, indeed,separatelyconceivedin a waythat thoseof the
secondset are not, but onlyin a way.Thesecondset comprisesreimaginingsof one conception
not repeats of one conception.It is the extent and intensityof their commonalitythat dis
tinguishesthe paintingsof the secondset fromthose of the first, not their commonalityitself.
Forthe paintingsof the firstset do obviously havea commonconceptionforall their differences.
Andwhat distinguishesthe two sets is not onlythe greater conceptualunityprovidedby true
serialityin the secondset but alsoan actualchangein conception.I haveemphasizedthe wayin
whichthe later Veilsemergefromand consolidateaspectsof the 1954Veils.(Neitherbeforenor
after the breakthroughachievedby the 1954Veilsdid Louisbegin a paintingfrom nothing,
withouta subject;he workedfromknownentities,if onlyfromthe componentsof his restricted
vocabulary.) At the sametime,theyopposeandjettisonotheraspectsof the 1954Veils—to such
an extent,indeed,as to suggestan evengreaterseparationofthe twosets than I haveyet argued.
Beforedevelopingthis point further,however,I want to say somethingabout Louis'sworking
methods.For,as I observedearlier,Louis'sreimaginingwhat actuallyconstitutedthe art of

i luSSCCS
 paintingwas integralto his achievement.Moreover, the automatismof his workingmethods,the
way in whicha procedureof paintinggeneratedpaintings,is what firmlyassociatesthe two
series, establishesthe seriality that was consolidatedin the second series, and affirmsa
commonality amongall of the maturepaintingsthat Louismade.
The chief difficultyhere is that Louisworkedin utter privacy.After the sessionsof "jam
painting"withNolandin 1953,nobodyeversawLouispaint,for nobodywasallowedin his studio
whilehe wasworking;and whenhe had finishedworkingfor the day,that day'sworkwas dried
withthe aid of a largefan and rolledup,the studiocleaned,and everythingtidilyput away.There
wasnothingbohemianaboutLouis,either in his appearanceor in his behavioror in his working
environment; indeed,he was extremelyimpatientwithanyofthe implicationsof that essentially
Romanticidea.
Hisstudioitselfwas tiny—onlyfourteenfeet bytwelvefeet twoinches.Theformerdining
roomon the groundfloorof his modestWashington home,it wasbuiltout fromthe houseso that
three of its wallsmainlyconsistedof tall windows,and it abutteda livingroomabouttwiceits
sizein whichLouisusedto viewcompletedpaintings,removingthe furnitureand carpetin order
to do so.Thiswas necessarybecauseit wasobviously difficultfor himto evaluatethe completed
paintingsin the studioitself.In fact, someof his paintingswereactuallylargerthan the studio.
Mostof his paintings,certainly,couldnot easilybe seenas distancedwholeswhilehe was in his
studio.These seeminglyunbearableconstrictionsnever,it seems,botheredLouis.His simple
acceptanceof them tells of his compulsiveness as a painterand also,probably,of his desirenot
to allowhimselfa distancedviewof his paintingsas he workedon them lest he fall backon his
"previousknowledgeof balancingand composition,"as AnthonyCaro characterizedhis own
reasonfor usinga similarlyconstrictedworkplace:it preventedhim "frombackingawayand
25 editingthe workprematurely.""WhenI tookthe workoutside,"Carosaid of his ownapproach,
"it was a shocksometimesinsofaras it lookeddifferentfromsculpturesthat I was accustomed
to."It is reasonableto assumethat Louishad similarshockswhenhe sawhis paintingsoutside
his studio.
Furthermore,the small size of the studioencouragedLouisto workon his paintingsin
sections.I have referredto the balanceof detailsand wholesin Louis'sVeils.He clearlytook
some,and probablymany,of the Veilsback into the studioafter lookingat them outside,and
reworkedtheir surfacesto achievethe particularbalancehe desired.It is misleadingto assume
that everypaintingwasthe resultof onesessionofwork.Butthere is also,in the secondseries,a
balanceof parts and wholesthat must certainlyowesomethingto the smallnessof his studio,
whilenot actuallybeingdictatedby it. Forexample,the 1958workLoam,(page101)was clearly
madein twohalves,whichoverlapat the center.As stretched,it measuresroughlysevenand a
halfbytwelveand a halffeet. It wasobviously easierto workon a canvasof this sizein sections,
and Louisfoundnewcompositional possibilitiesin the part-to-partproceduresthe smallnessof
his studio encouraged.It is indisputablethat these physicallimitationscontributedto the
creationof the Unfurleds,where paint is appliedonlyat the two sides of often a very large
canvas,at timesgreaterin lengththan the longestdimensionof the studio.
Louismadehis paintingswiththe canvastackedto a stretchermadefrominexpensiveone-
by-three-inchlumber.Thiswas approximately twelvefeet longby eight or nine feet high,which
was as large as could be accommodatedon the longestavailablewall of his studio. Until
 September1958Louisused rolls of eight-foot-wide canvas,fromAugust1959rolls of nine-foot-
widecanvas.(Nocanvasreceiptsexistforthe interveningperiod,but it is reasonableto assume,
from the 1958dates with whichsome larger paintingswere exhibitedby Louisat French &
Companyin 1959,that he movedto the larger size canvaslate in that year.)The canvaswas
foldedoverthe top horizontalstrut of the stretcherand fastenedthere, at first usinga hammer
and tacks,then later (whenpicturesbeganto sell) a staplegun.Forsmallerpicturesonlypart of
the stretcherwascoveredwithcanvas.Forothers,part of the canvasmusthavebeenallowedto
lie on the floor at the bottom.Somepaintingswere obviouslyeither made with their sides
extendedbeyondthe limitsof the stretcher or they were tackedverylooselyonto it, for their
widthsare sometimesgreaterthan that of the stretcher.
Thisshouldgivesomeidea of what it meantfor Louisto moveand manipulatehis often
huge canvases,heavywith soakedpaint, in that constrictedstudiospace.Withthe stretcher
leaningagainstthe wall,he wouldpour rivuletsof the thinned Magnadownthe often loosely
drapedcanvas,controllingthe flowbyadjustingthe angleto the wallat whichthe stretcherwas
placed,by tiltingit fromside to side, by usinga large swabto guidethe paint, by maskingoff
(probablywith smallerpiecesof canvas)parts of the picture,and by manipulatingthe canvas
itself.Hewouldalsopourthe paint not onlyfromthe top ofthe stretcherbut fromvariouspoints
withinthe canvas,directingit diagonallyacrossthe surface.Withthe Unfurleds,such diagonal
pouring—begunat the side braces of the stretcher and directedinward—formedthe entire
basisof makingthese immenseworks.Here,the unpaintedcanvasat the center musthavebeen
gatheredand folded(and possiblycoveredto preventits beingmarredby accidentalspillsof
paint),and the canvasat the edgespleatedin someway,for the rivuletsare roughlyparallelin
their flowand couldhardlyhavebeen manuallydirectedinto the configurations that result.
Someof the 1958Veilsalsoshowsignsof pleatingas wellas carryingin their surfacesthe
impressionsof verticalbraces.In these so-calledtriadicVeilsthe positionof the two uprights
that dividethe veilimageis so particularand plotted—onein the center,the otherthree feet to
the right—that no otherreasonableconclusionis possiblethan that Louisdeliberatelysoughtto
achievethat effect(see Appendix).In someof the worksof this triadicseries,Louisopenedup
wedge-shaped areas of bare canvasat the bottomof the twoverticalsby stoppingthe diagonal
poursfromone or both sidesof theseverticalbracesa fewfeet short of the floor.Thismayhave
providedthe inspirationfor the so-calledsplit Veils,wherethe veil is separatedinto distinct
sections,either fingerlikeimagesor broaderfields.
Asthe paint was impelledby gravityto the bottomof the canvas,it pooledon that part of
the canvasthat restedon the floor,formingdenserconcentrationsthan appearelsewherein the
pictures.In manyof the 1958,and someof the 1959,VeilsLouisestablishedthe bottomedgeof
the pictureas runningthroughthe center of this denserarea, and used it pictoriallyto forma
sort of base on whichthe veil imagestands. (If the poolingleft a crackedsurface,or if for
pictorialreasons—as in all of the Stripes—he did not wantit visible,he simplycroppedit off.)
In the case ofthe Veils,the top ofthe picturewasusuallyestablishedbyleavinga narrowbandof
canvasabovethe highestreach of the paintedarea. It was Louis'sstated intentionto establish
the two sides of the picture in the sameway.In someof the 1958and 1959Veils,however,he
acceptedGreenberg'sadvicethat more bare canvasbe allowedto remain.Greenbergsubse
quentlyrealizedthat Louiswas correctin not wantingto overemphasize the imagistqualityof
 the Veilsby so stronglysilhouettingthem againstareas of blankcanvas,and that bringingin the
edgesof the picturejust short of the painted area on three sides helpedvisuallytauten the
paintedarea, therebyreturningits illusionismto the flatnessof the surface.
Louisdid not talk aboutthe novelproceduresthat he had devised.Hesimplydid not want
his art to be judgedby its methods,but by their results.Thisis not at all unusual;neither is it
unusualfor an artist to be unwillingto paint beforean audience.Louis'spersonalitymayhave
been a lot moresecretivethan most,but this waspart of his remarkableself-sufficiency (a self-
sufficiency that onecannothelp but see in his art too).Oneshouldbe waryof attributingundue
significance to the proceduresin themselves.Hedid not submithis creationsto the justification
ofmethod;for Louismethodwasjustifiedin its submissionto art. It is evidentfromthe paintings
themselvesthat the placementof the stainedareas,the finaldimensionsof the canvases,and—
in the vast majorityofcases—the directionof intendedhanging,as wellas the generalcare and
26 controlof the mediumare as preciselyintendedas in anypainterlyart.
Louis'ssecretivenessmaypartlybe held responsiblefor the mysterythat cameto surround
his art and led to often egregiousmisconceptions about his artistic aims. Evennowthe full
extentof Louis'scontrolofhis mediumis insufficiently remarked.Forexample,it is obviousfrom
his picturesthat whileLouisusedmainly"automatic"paintingprocedures,he alsomadecareful
adjustmentsby hand. I refer here not only to the final dark scrim in the Veils,whichwas
certainlyappliedusinga swab,nor onlyto the precisionwithwhichit wasapplied,at timeswith
areas of the surfacemaskedout to allowthe brightercolorsunderneathto showthrough,but
alsoto suchthingsas the wayhe woulddrawdownstreamersof darkerpaint and add stripesof
brightlycoloredpaint at the edgesof the veil,and to the wayhe wouldgo backto his pictures,
addingtouchesand sometimeswholelayersof paint to adjusttheir effect.
Detailsof this sort are not immediatelyapparentwhenlookingat Louis'sVeils—whichis a
measureof their successfuluse—but they are there to be seen,and I willrefer to their use in
specificpaintingsin the followingchapter,whereit willbe seen that whilethe secondseriesof
Veilscontainsless purelyphenomenaldetail than the first, it actuallycontainsmoremanually
adjusteddetail. Obviously, the fact that Louisused detailingof this sort does not make his
picturesanybetter or worse.But,equallyobviouslyI think,his actualuse of it did makethem
better.It is often assumedthat the stain methoddisallowscorrection.Louis'sworkprovesthat
this is not so. In someof the Stripepaintings,even,Louiswouldredraw—or repour,rather—a
stripe in a differentcolor exactlyon top of an existingone. The skill that this required is
remarkable.But, again, it does not appear as such in the completedpictures.If it did, the
pictureswouldseemincomplete.
It was not in Louis'sprocedures,then, but in his utter commitmentto their purelyartistic
27 possibilities(to his unearthingof these possibilities) that he founda freedomquite new in
modernart. Evenmore than Pollockbeforehim, he establishednot so mucha new style of
painting,nor merelya new processfor creatingpaintings,but a newmedium of painting.He
discovered, as Greenberghas written,"that the ambitiousabstractpaintercouldno longersafely
take anythingforgrantedin the makingof a picture,not the shapeof its support,not the nature
of its surface,not the nature of its paint covering,not the implementwithwhichhe appliedthe
28 paint, and not the way in which he applied it." Louis'smethod investigatedthe physical
conditionof painting'sexistence,inquiredaboutthe veryidentityof the art of paintingitself.
 43

3 AFTERJUNE1954,whenLouishad completedthe sixteenpicturesthat comprisethe first series

ofVeils,it wasnot untilthree and a halfyears(and overthree hundredfailedpictures)later that
he againfoundhimselfas an artist, indeed,that he establishedhis identityas an artist, for such
Relationshipof Veilsto pre-modernartistic is the achievementof the secondseriesofVeils.Begunin the winterof 1957/58and concludedin
traditions;1958-59Veils;Florals,Alephs,and the late springor summerof 1959,it comprisesabout125pictures,of which100were probably
other transitionalpicturesof 1959-60 completedor painted in 1958,the earliest being the nearly 50 so-calledbronzeVeils,which
effectivelyconstitutea separategroupin themselves(pages97-103).If the 1954Veilspresent
themselvesas an oasis of languidbeautyamidstan infertiledesert of frustratedexperiments,
the bronzeVeils,by contrast,forma far moresubstantialgroundon whichLouiswas able to
build.Aftercompletingboth series of Veilsin 1959,he underwenta newperiodof uncertainty,
whichlasted until he began the Unfurledpicturesa year later, in the early summerof 1960.
However, this periodwasverydifferentfromthat whichdividedthe 1954and 1958-59Veils,and
producedsomesuperbpicturesbasedon implicationscontainedin the morecolorful1959Veils.
The continuityof Louis'sdevelopmentas a mature artist, whichbeganwith the 1958bronze
Veils,was not disruptedas it had been previouslybut was maintaineduntil it was suddenlycut
short by his operationfor cancer of the lung in July 1962,whichpreventedhim from ever
paintingagain.
The1954Veilshad beenpaintedin a timeoffermentand irresolution,not onlyfor Louisbut
for new art in general.Whenthe 1958-59Veilswere begun,a great deal had changed.Pollock
was dead,Rothkoand Still (soonto be followedbyNewman)weregainingin reputation,Frank-
enthalerhad returnedto staining,Noland'sfirstone-manshowhad takenplaceand his workwas
developingquickly,and "gestural"AbstractExpressionism was all but exhaustedas a sourcefor
newartists. Bythe time that Louisexhibitedhis newVeilsat French& Company, NewYork,in
March-April1959, 1it wasfast becomingclearthat AbstractExpressionism as a wholewasbeing
supplanted.Bythe end of that year,The Museumof ModernArt'sSixteenAmericansexhibition
(whichincludedJohns,Rauschenberg,Stella,and Kelly)announcedthe directionsthat led to
the Popand Minimaliststylesof the 1960s.Louis'sstylisticchangein 1959-60,fromthe Veilsto
the Unfurleds,similarlyforeshadowed anotherquintessentially 1960sform,ColorFieldpainting
as practicedboth in Washington and NewYork.Allof these newformswerenoticeably"clearer"
and "cooler"than thosewhichhad dominatedthe precedingdecadeand, despitetheir obvious
differences,stylisticallymore consistenttoo. The ambiguousmeldingsof differentcurrents
characteristicof the 1950s —indeed,the preoccupationwith ambiguityitselfwhichmarksthat
decade—gavewayto versionsof a singlestylegenerallycharacterizedby crisplyand regularly
drawnflat,heraldiclayouts,high-keyed color,and clear,opendesign.Soon,evena realistpainter
such as PhilipPearlsteinwas led to observe,"Thesensibilityof thefirst half of the sixtieshas
hardened.Pop art, constructionsof all kinds,hard-edgeabstraction,and myownkind of hard
2 realism—it's all 'hard'—sharp,clear,unambiguous. In the fiftieseverythingwasambiguous."In
the 1950sverylittle was "hard,"and no singlesensibilityhad managedto harden.
Withthe advantageof hindsight,it is possibleto viewevenLouis's1958bronzeVeilsas part
ofthis late 1950sshiftfrom(in HeinrichWolfflin's terms) "painterly"to "linear"stylesand ofthe
3 "cooling"of AbstractExpressionism whichaccompanied(and encouraged)it. Theirstarkness,
and severityeven,as comparedto the 1954Veils;their bilaterallysymmetrical, firmlycontoured,
clear"imagery"; their openfieldspunctuatedbyregularized,geometricdrawingare all attributes
 44

of the bronzeVeilsthat relate them to the "Post-Painterly Abstraction"of the 1960swithwhich

Louis'sart after 1959evidentlybelongs.And yet, they are still late AbstractExpressionist
pictures,not onlyin their emphasison monochromerather than high-keyedcolorbut also in
their particularuse of thoseverystylisticelementsthat relate them to the 1960s.Theyseemto
represent Louis'sattempt to achieve,after the lighter earlier Veils,an epic AbstractExpres
sioniststyle as seriousand monumentalas that of any establishedAbstractExpressionist; one
that combines,in fact, the expandeddrawingof Motherwellor Klineor Pollockwith the field
aspects of Newmanor Rothkoor Still,and therebyextendsthe life and emotionalcontent of
AbstractExpressionism in the synthesisof those hithertoopposedsidesof the movement;and,
morespecifically, one that finallymatchesPollock's,the onlyAbstractExpressionist stylebefore
Louis'sto makefieldsfromexpandeddrawing.It is withthe bronzeVeilsthat Louisat last came
to termswithPollock'sachievement.Havingdoneso, his development was entirelyhis own.
At least, his developmentwas largelyindependentof his contemporaries.(Therewere
timeswhenhe learnedfromNewman,Still,and Noland,but these lessonsservedto hasten the
emergenceof featuresalreadylatent in his work.)Necessarily, it was not independentof the
past. I began the precedingchapter by assertingthat Louis'soriginalityis not residualorigi
nality;rather,it lies in what linkshis art to the past. Beforeturningto the developmentof the
1958-59Veils,I want to considerhowour understandingof the characterand contentof these
pictures,and of their differencefromthe 1954Veils,mightbe informedby placingthem in the
contextof certaingeneraltraditionsofWesternpainting.I intendbythis not to validatethemby
association,for any work of art whether great or small may be consideredin this way,but,
instead,to attempt to cometo terms with the nature of their meaning,whichis necessarily
difficultto specifygiventhe abstractnessof Louis'swork.Subjectmatter,obviously, is not the
sameas content;neither is the meaningof a workof art limitedto or exhaustedby its sources.
Nevertheless,in consideringworksof art or wholebodiesof workwith (or ultimatelyderived
from)illustratedsubjectswe can at least observehowartisticmeaninghas beendevelopedfrom
picturingthingsin the worldthat we too haveseen and can at least gaincluesaboutan artist's
sensibilityfromthe kindsof subjectshe has chosen,subjectswhichinfiltratehisworkwiththeir
own associationsand own history.With Louis'swork,we can have no assistancefrom that
quarter.Everythingexists in a purelyabstract state. "Louis'svery imaginationstrikes one as
radicallyabstract,"wrote MichaelFried, "in a way that not just Pollock'sbut that of any
4 modernistpainter beforeLouis,exceptperhapsMatisse,does not." The meaningof his work,
therefore,wouldseemto be inaccessibleexceptin purelyabstractand artisticterms.
In practice,however,interpretationsof Louis'sworkare frequentlymade in other terms,
and there seemsto be a generalconsensuson this issue,at least with regardto the Veils.Even
Greenberg,who choosesnot to address specificallyquestionsof content (on the reasonable
groundthat nothingis demonstrablehere), implicitlysuggestedwhat their content mightbe
whenansweringLouis'srequeststo providelists of titles for his pictures.Louishimselfwas not
interestedin titles but preferredthem to numberssimplyfor reasonsof convenience(nor was
the seriesname"Veils" Louis's).AmongGreenberg'stitles are:7lerranean,Vernal,Russet, Bower,
Aurora,Air Desired,and GoldenAge.Theseare organicistand idealisttitles implicitlycompar
ingthe Veilsto the moodsof Romanticand pastorallandscapesand,ultimately, to the archetypal
motifof the paradisalgarden.
 Muchhas been said in recentyearson the Romanticistconnectionof Pollock,Rothko,and
otherAbstractExpressionists, and Louishas sometimesbeenintroducedintothis debate.Robert
5 Rosenblum,notably,has referred to the Romanticvitalismand pantheismof Louis'swork.
Withoutnecessarilydisagreeingwith this interpretation,I neverthelessfeel that to talk imme
diatelyof Romanticism(and this for AbstractExpressionism in general)undulyhardens and
prejudicesthe issue,for it tendsto prescribeinvestigation intothe searchfor analoguesbetween
newand old Romanticart. A moredisinterestedsuggestionwouldbe that perhapsRomanticism
and AbstractExpressionism share similarconcernsand preoccupations of whichthey,as histor
icalmovements, are bothinstances.Andif the real stumblingblockin our appreciationof Louis's
sensibilityis the sheer abstractnessof his work—the fact that it is so utterlypart and parcelof
the mediumof painting—it is certainlyworthinquiringwhetherthis is so unprecedentedas it
appearsat first sight.
Theabsolutevisualityof Louis'sworkis withoutexactprecedent.Withanypreviousabstract
artist, it is possibleto discoversomea priori subjector idea that informsunderstandingof the
structureof the work.This is true of Pollockand Newmanas much as it is true of Kasimir
Malevichand Piet Mondrian.It is not true of Louis,whoeffectivelymadethe first fullyautono
mousabstract pictures.Thereis, nevertheless,a long-standing traditionof paintingespecially
responsiveto the inherent possibilitiesand beauty of the paintingmedium.Part of Louis's
originalitywas in his rediscoveringand then purifyingsomethingthat was not at first easily
accessibleto twentieth-century sensibilities,namelya particularkindofpoeticpaintingthat has
6 its modernoriginsin the Renaissance.
BypoeticpaintingI meanthis:whenRenaissancetheoristsdiscussedthe famousHoratian
concept—Utpictura poesis—that is to say,a pictureis like a poemand shouldspeakto the
intellectrather than to the senses,they beganto discoveran alternativeinterpretationof the
samephrase.LeonBattistaAlberti,for example,contrastedennoblingpictures—thosefulfilling
the intellectual,didacticimplicationsof Horace'sidea—withpicturesofan oppositekind,whose
justificationwas that if paintingis a kindof poetry,then it mightbe a specificallypoetickindof
painting—a relaxing,harmoniouskind of paintingsimilarin its effectson the humanmindto
7 that of music—whichwould"helpto restorethe tired spiritsof the man of affairs."Thisis to
justifya hedonistic,lyricalart devotedto pastoralsubjectsrather than (and besides)a moral
istic, epic art devotedto ennoblingsubjects(also,in effect,to justifyVenetianpaintingnext to
Florentine).Whereasthe intellectualinterpretationof the Horatianidea was fulfilledin an
emphatically urban,civicart, expressiveofthe orderingofaffairsin a rational,organizedsociety
(whosebiblicalarchetypewas the cityof Jerusalem),the instinctiveinterpretationwas fulfilled
in a rural, pastoralart, whichimaginedan existenceprior to and apart fromsocietyitself (its
archetypebeingthe paradisalgarden).Thetwointerpretations(and the polaritiesI am usingto
describethem), as manifestedin the practice of painting,were never totallydistinct,but in
practice the intellectualinterpretationproduceda more heroicand proclamatoryart of reg
ularizedaccentand meter,and the instinctive,a moreintrovertedand privateart of increasingly
asymmetricaland irregularrhythms.Andwhilethe formertendedto idealizationrather than to
realism,both in terms of representationand in the use of the medium—that is to say,to the
fullnessand stabilityof form,and thereforecontainmentof colorand touch—the latter tended
to the oppositein both these things.
 46

The instinctive,moreover,by virtue of its functionalcomparisonwith music,was seen as

potentiallycapableof evokinga highlygeneralized,universalharmony.It wasLeonardowhofirst
pointedthis out, notingalsothat this kindof art wasparticularlyopento technicalexperiment.
The famouspassagefrom his Treatiseon Painting about discoveringlandscapesin stains on
walls (the ultimatesourceof the automatistidea) is relevanthere, as is Leonardo'sfamous
comparisonof the painter'svery methodswith those of the poet. If we were to rephrase his
comparisonin moderntermswewouldsaythat the painterlikethe poet induceshis structures
by experimentingwith the basicpropertiesof his medium.Thisis to justifya kind of painting
that showsits artistic core mostclearly.
A largepart of this was,in effect,an attemptto producea theoreticaljustificationfor the
emergenceof landscapepainting;also,however,to producea modelfor the uniquepossibilities
of paintingfreed from the tutelageof sculpturein the sixteenthcentury.But both landscape
paintingand painting'sfreedomfromthe sculpturalhad been adumbratedearlierin the North,
and it was in the GothicNorthrather than the MediterraneanSouththat one of the pictorial
traditionsmost relevantto modernAmericanpainting(includingLouis's)developed.Thiswas
the luminousalternativeto chiaroscuropaintingwhereinthe illusionismof transparentcolor
provideda volumesurrogateby releasingan internallight,a light identifiablewith (spiritual)
content,as in the case of Gothicstained glass.As SidneyTillimhas pointedout, watercolor
painting,being an essentiallynorthern form, inherits the spiritual,Gothicethos of Flemish
8 luminism.Evenwhensecularizedbyits associationwithlandscapesubjects,andtherebyfinding
commongroundwith the Mediterraneanpastoral,it continuedto evokethe spiritual.It was
neitherhedonisticnor ennobling,neitherpastoralnor civic,but rather animisticor pantheistic,
beingremovedfromboth the relaxingand the organizingaspectsof worldlyexistence.
I referredearlier to the possibilityof distinguishingthe two series of Veilsin relationto
watercolorand frescopainting,the twotraditions(morethan just techniques)of paintingthat
lie behindthe soak-stainapproach.Theformeris characterizedas intimate,tendingto lyricism,
highlydependentupontouch,and havingthe candorand immediacyof a sketch;the latter is
public,tendingto the epicand the monumental,involving suppressionof touch,and havingthe
distancedaloofnessof architecturaldecoration.Thisdichotomyexaggeratesthe differencebe
tween the two sets of Veils,but it does indicatethe modalitiestowardwhichthey tend, and
explainswhatwas meantearlierby an actualchangein conceptionfromthe first to the second
set of Veils.Whilethe second set does maintainfeatures of the first, the features that it
maintainstend to be thosethat are associablewiththe muralistas wellas withthe watercolorist
tradition.In one importantrespect, moreover,the secondset uncovers,in this conflation,an
aspect of the watercolortraditionnot fullyexpressedin the lyricaland intimateearlierVeils,
namelythe originalspiritualethos of luministart. There is a definitesense of stern Gothic
verticalityin the acute-archeddrawingandjaggeddetailingof the bronzeVeils.Theyhavebeen
9 comparedto Monet'spaintingsof RouenCathedral. The comparisonwas meant to point out
their Impressionistconnections.It doesthat; but it alsorevealshowLouis,by monumentalizing
10 his art with the regular,drawnrhythmsof Mediterraneanmuralism (present even in some
aspectsofMonet),makesit seemactuallymoreGothicthan beforeratherthan lessso—because*
what he monumentalizes is watercolor,therebyreturningit to its originsin publicGothicart.
TheMediterraneanmuraltraditionis emphatically worldly,givenits civicnature.Assuch,it

SBSS£gg£SgHS3
 47

tends to the epic and proclamatory.It does so, moreover,not onlyby virtue of its intent and
functionbut also by virtue of its form,whichnecessarilyis one of lateral expansion,the wall
rather than the window(as in watercolorpainting)beingits architecturalprototypeand often
its actual base. It thereforetends to narration rather than to illustration(as in watercolor
painting);eventuallyto decorationrather than to illumination.Althoughits civicintent and
functionrequiredthat it presentstableand hencesculpturallyrealizedforms,its actualassocia
tion with the walltendedto dissipationof the sculpturalin favorof the flatlydecorative,while
maintaining,however,the regular"heroic"rhythmsof a publicart. Matisse'sworkoffersthe best
exampleof modernism'sadoption(and adaption)of this tradition.
WhatI am referringto here are normsand modalitiesof painting,not prescribedrules or
insulatedmethodsfor makingpaintings.Neitherthe intellectualepic and the hedonisticlyric
nor the watercoloristand the muralistapproachesto paintingwere evertotallydistinct.Louis's
conflationof aspectsof these is but one of the multitudeof such conflationsin the historyof
Westernart. For it has alwaysbeen the rearrangementand fusionof differentand opposing
normsand modalitiesof paintingthat haveaccountedfor its importantrevolutions —or better,
mutations—in form.It is possible,and justifiable,to trace the instinctivein modernismback
from Dada and Surrealismto the essentiallyamoral art of the pastoral ideal; the urban,
geometricside of modernismto the didactic classicisttradition;the abstract luminismin
modernart to the internallight of watercolorand beforethat Gothicspirituality;and modern
decorativefieldpaintingto Mediterraneanmuralistart. Nevertheless, it is the artistswhosework
most emphaticallyrefusescategorizationin this waywhomwe value as revolutionaries.For
example,JosephMallordWilliamTurner'sbreakwiththe vocabularyof the Picturesque —one of
the mostdirectdescendantsofthe pastoral—wasachievedbyhis avoidingPicturesqueasymme
try and beginningto balance his pictures more classicallyacross a central axis, while also
breakingwithclassicalconventionsoflight-and-dark modelingfora close-valued kindofpainting
that mergedthe luminosityofwatercolorwiththe planartangibility,and scale,ofmuralpainting.
This is of obviousrelevanceto Louis'sart. So is Picasso'sattempt, in Guernica (a picture
11 Louis admired), to ennoblethe demonicpastoral ethos of his contemporaneouswork by
enclosingit, as it were,in a moral,civicsettingmarkedbyregularverticalrhythms,likeclassical
columns.
But, again,it is Pollockwho mostemphaticallyanticipatesthe particularfusionof tradi
tionsthat informsLouis'sart. "Pollock," wroteSidneyTillim,"wasresponsiblefor all the nobility
Surrealismever knew,sincehe gaveautomatismscaleand set the stagefor a heroicsecularism
12 in painting." His form of Abstract Expressionism, Tillimobserved,combinesthe northern
impulseto dematerialization withthe Parisian(Mediterranean)aestheticof the flat, decorative
plane.It alsotransformedautomatismfroman introverted,privateact expressiveof the artist's
egoand his autobiographical self to an extroverted,publicact expressive,instead,if not always
ofthe artist'sreleasefromthe specificityof suchpersonalfeelingsthen of his struggleto achieve
that release.Andwhen that release came,in the alloverpaintings,it was into an obsessively
crafted form of "illumination." Louis'sart, even more specificallythan Pollock's,locates the
illuminationon "a veryphysicalobjectthat is nothingbut color,a vast luminouspane through
whichlightfiltersinto the 'interior'of a secularcathedralwithoutwalls—the concretionof our
13 utterlyself-conscious and materialintuitionof the universe."
 COLOR,IN FACT,is muted and subdued to a mysterioushalf-light, neither dawn nor dusk but
associable with both, in Louis'sbronze Veils.It is the drawingmore than the color of these works
that asserts their "heroic secularism." Louis's Motherwell-influencedTranquilities collages of
1952-53 adumbrate their regularly paced rhythms. But the way that these rhythms are coaxed
from, and inherently belong to, the process of making paintings is entirely new.
The exact chronologyof the bronze Veils— indeed, of the 1958-59 Veils as a whole— is
unknownand is likelyto remain so. Wedo knowthat the most characteristic, triadic, kind, which
14 forms the vast majority,was being made by the spring of 1958. Whether they were preceded, in
the winter of 1957-58,by less fullyresolvedpaintings, which Louisdestroyed;whether they were
preceded by those awkwardtriadic Veilswhere areas of bare canvas left within the shape of each
veil at the bottom of the painting overemphasizethe imagist quality of that shape; whether those
paintings followedthe classic triadic works and led Louisinto the split Veils;or, indeed, whether
Louis made different kinds of Veils concurrently are all questions which, if answerable, would
help us understand the developmentallogic (or conceivably,the lack of it) of the Veils.But we
simply do not know.
ClyffordStill.1954.1954.Oilon canvas,9' 5'A"x 13'.Albright-
Knox
We do know, however,that Louis used eight-foot-widecanvas until September 1958 and Art Gallery,Buffalo.Giftof SeymourH.Knox,1957
turned to nine-foot-widecanvas sometime before the end of that year, and continued to use it
thereafter. So it is possible to establish a very rudimentary chronologyon the assumption that
the types of Veilspainted on eight-foot-widecanvas preceded those painted on both eight- and
nine-foot-widecanvas, which preceded those painted on only nine-foot-widecanvas. The chro
nologythat followsis based on this assumption and on the assumption that the developmental
stylistic logic of the Veils reflects the order in which they were made. But neither of these
assumptions, however reasonable, can be proven.
In any event, it is certain that the triadic bronze Veilswere among the first that Louis
completed in 1958(pages 97-99). It wouldseem that the earlier of these were the pictures with a
simpler and duller surface and a less regularlyformedveil shape and the later, the pictures with
more complex drawing and color contrasts, a more lively,asserted surface, and a more firmly
contoured veil shape. Certainly, the more authoritative pictures are those with the latter at
tributes. Those where the top of the veil shape is not trued to the horizontal, but dips and then
peaks as it meets the two vertical "lines" within it, suffer because the functional relationship,
thus illustrated, between the internal drawing and the external shape of the veil image tends to
give it the appearance of a looselyflapping construction (something like a canvas windbreak)
standing in front of the picture surface. Those where the sides of the image are not roughly
symmetrical suggest that it is slipping from its moorings,even that the two sides advance and
recede in opposite directions. Louis later found that the source of expressivepower in the Veils
lay in their outside edges. However,he was not able to tap that power until he established the
veil image itself as a flat, heraldic, bilaterally symmetricalunit, firmlyrested on the base of the
picture and floatedjust free on the other three sides.
Color in these pictures, Michael Fried has astutely observed, "is much more closely and
specificallyanswerable to figurativeconcerns and impulses [than in the earlier Veils],including
15 the impulse to do awaywith figuration within the stained portion of the canvas altogether." He opposite-.ClaudeMonet.RouenCathedral,WestFacade,Sunlight.
refers to the fact that while the drawing is starker and apparently more traditional in its 1894.Oilon linen,39/2 x 26".NationalGalleryof Art, Washington,
linearity,as compared to the drawing of the 1954pictures, no sooner do we realize these things D.C.The ChesterDaleCollection
 than we also realizethat they belongto, and create,an unbrokencontinuumof color.Whereas
drawingor figurationin the 1954Veilsis mainlythe productof changesofhue,and the continuity
of the surfaceis establishedby colorsflowingacrosseach other,fluctuatingcontinuously across
the surface,drawingor figurationin the 1958-59Veilsis mainlythe productof readilyapparent
changesof tonality,and the continuityofthe surfaceis establishedin the breadthofthe painted
field,whichruns throughthe veryregularlydrawntonalchanges,whosefunction(likePollock's
latticeworkdrawing)is to articulatethe spreadof color.The continuityof the surfacein these
Veilsis in its uniform,denseextension.Its coloristicrichness,as Friedobserved,consists"notin
the simultaneouspresenceof severalmoreor less disembodiedhues in the sameportionof the
canvas,but in the bindingtogether in a single darkish tonality—often brown,bronze,or
green—of the comparatively few,and for the mostpart clearlydelimited,hues they comprise."
Drawing,in effect,is present in a self-evidently traditionalway,but its traditional(contouring
and delineating)functionsare subvertedbecausethe flat spreadof the colorwhichformsthe
drawingthus subvertsit. The individual"drawn"configurations no longerseem to flowacross
each other,being laid downside by side, either beside each other or in interlockingjagged
patterns.But the imageas a wholeis as procedurally, texturally,and coloristically
uniformas a
Pollockalloverpainting and, similarly,subsumesthe linear quality of its drawingwithout
sacrificingthe senseof detailingthat drawingprovides.
Pollock'smethodof workingmeantthat the breadthand evennessof the surfacehad to be
strivenfor; Louis'swas a morenaturalmethodof surfacecovering.It owessomethingto Still's
paintings.Nolandhas observed,"Morrisand I lookedlongand hardat Still,especiallythe wayhe
16 couldopenup colorand get it to flowacrossthe surface." Still'sinfluencemaybe seen in the
jaggeddrawingof someof the bronzeVeils(and somelater picturestoo),whichLouisachieved
bypleatingthe bottomedgecausingthe colorto flowto eithersideofthe pleat;this alsodictated
the heightof the spearlikeimagethat resulted.In others,a comparableeffectwas producedby
pouringpaint diagonallyfromvariouspointsalongthe verticalmarksthat were createdwhere
the canvasrestedon uprightstruts,lb the extent,however, that the verticalsthemselvesbecome
dominant(whichthey often do), it is Newmanrather than, or in additionto, Still who is
17 recalled.
The nature and varietyof the internal detailingin the bronzeVeilsis truly remarkable.
Someare relativelyuniformand understated.In others,the stabilityof the triadic formatis
emphasized,at timesto checkand controlveryeccentricallydrawnareas. A numbercounter-
posethe twoverticals(one at the center;the other somethree feet to its right) with a darker
area to the extremeleft of the veilof roughlythe samesizeas the distancebetweenthe verticals.
Yetothersprovidedarkerareason bothsides,whichreadas wingsor framingdevices.Averyfew,
all mostprobablymadeat the end of the "bronze"group(say,in the summerof 1958or evenas
late as 1959),dispensewith the final dark veil to revealresplendentlygorgeouscolor,usually
blue, and reminiscent in its detailing of butterfly wings and exotic crystals—whose
gorgeousness, however,is checkedby the veryskeletalstructurethat providesthe detailingand
by the vein of icy coldnessthat runs beneath their warmlybreathingsurfaces.But these are
exceptional.Othersdo carry mineralassociations,but usuallyof less easilyidentifiablesub
18 stances,nonewhollyalien and unknownbut noneentirelyfamiliareither. Andthe darknessof
the vast majorityof these picturesgivesto them a moodless celebratorythan contemplativeof
 50

the naturalworldto whichtheyallude.At times,the darknessis elegiac,at timesconnotativeof

19 autumnalsubstances(whichoften amountsto the same thing). Moreoften, however,these
pictureshavethe magnetismto attract and focusmoodsrather than create them.Thatis to say,
theyaffordless an interpretationof the naturalworld,their subject,than a revelationof it. The
natural worldstands forth in these pictures,not pictured,certainly,not even expressed,but
simplypresentto us, in front of us, in the silenceof their facingfields.
In one sense,this is a familiarkindof nature Romanticism, a particularlyAmericankind,
andwhatRalphWaldoEmersonsaidof HenryDavidThoreaucouldbe saidof Louis:"Hisposition
20 was in Nature,& so commandedall its miracles& infinitudes."Thiswouldbe to place Louis
withArthurDoveand AugustusVincentTack(whoseworkhe mustcertainlyhaveknown)and
alsowithearlierAmericanluminists,whoselandscapesRobertRosenblumhas characterizedas
revealing"that silent,primordialvoidof lightand spacewherematerialforms,whetheranimal,
21 vegetableor mineral,are virtuallypulverizedor banishedby the incorporealdeity of light."
Certainstructuraldevicesalsolink Louisto the luminists,"forluministlightlargelyderivesits
specialqualityfromits containmentwithinclearlydefinedgeometriesand sometimes,too,from
22 the oppositionof its brillianceto the ultraclarificationof foregrounddetail." It mayeven be
arguedthat Louis'sexpressedbeliefthat large-sizepaintingwas quintessential^Americanlinks
his art to the luminists'nationalisticcelebrationof the scaleof Americanscenery,its haunting
23 opennessand spatialfreedom. Certainly,there is a connectionto be madehere. I havealready
referredto Louis'splace in the traditionof Gothiclight,and Americanluminismis part of this
traditiontoo. However, what distinguishesLouis'sworkfrom earlier Americannature Roman
ticism(and distinguishesAbstractExpressionism as a whole),is its non-American inheritance.
As modernart, moreparticularly,ambitiousmid-centuryAmericanmodernart, it drawsmainly
and mostimmediately on Europeanmodernart—on Impressionism, Cubism,and Matisse.It may
do so indirectly,but it doesso ultimately,and that affectsmostemphaticallythe wayit presents
its world.
BethHeh (page97),for example,focusesa moodthat is mysteriously relatableto, let us say,
copperbeeches,at least to somekindof richlycolorednaturalsubstanceor form.The arboreal
associationis probablyattributableto the fact that the drawingin this picture (as in many)is
reminiscentofan exoticwoodveneer.Asusual,the associationis not limitedto whatthe drawing
or colorspecificallyevoke,whentheydo that, but rather involvesa broadersensualrecallakinto
Proustianremembrance.And the fact that the associationbeginsin, and is groundedin, a
pattern on the surfaceand recallsa similarpattern on anothersurface,makingimmanentthe
memoriesassociablewiththat similarpattern,showshowfromstart to finish,whenthe mindis
releasedfrom the localityof its stimulus,everythingis returnableto the surfaceand belongs
there.Thisshouldserveto demonstratehowLouis'sworkpartakesofthe European-derived sense
ofthere beinga tangible,resistant,flatpictureplane,whichfar fromopeningontoan immaterial
voidopens instead onto the viewer'sspace,not leadingus into an imaginationof nature but
locatingus, rather,in frontof a versionof naturethat existsindependentlyof us and elatesus, as
24 naturedoes,by virtueof its independencefromour hold. However, if it does not serve,then a
moreprosaicassociationprovokedbythe samegraphicpatterningshoulddo so. It is alsohighly
reminiscentof the drawingin AnalyticalCubistpaintings.
Amongthe aspectsof the Veilsthat associatethemwithAnalyticalCubistpaintingsmade
 51

after the summerof 1910are their frontality,their shallowtonal overlappings, the geometrical
and oftentriangulardrawingrestingon the bottomedgeof the picture,the almostpassage-hke
functionof the drawingin articulatingthe surfacebut allowingthe eyeto pass overit, the very
poeticand mysteriouswaythat the drawingseemsto emergeand submergewithinthe mono
chromespace,and the senseof innerlightas if it wereemanatingfromthe foldsof a sculptured
draperysuddenlyopenedand stretchedflat.
Andyet, whilethe stainingof Louis'spicturesmakesthem seem evenflatter than Cubist
ones,their luminismgivesthem alsogreaterdepth.In Cubistart, the symbiosisof the depicted
drawinginside the picture and the literal drawingof its edges brings into the picture the
compressingand tauteningeffectof the edges.In Louis'sart, as in Newman's,it worksin the
oppositemanner,unfoldingthe inside of the picture and openingit out, causingits pictorial
space "to leak through—or rather,to seem about to leak through—the framingedgesof the
25 picture into the space beyondthem." In Louis'scase, the limits of the pictorialspace are
defined(withoutquite beingenclosed)by a versionof that same drawingplacedcloseto the
framingedgesof the picture,that is to say,by the emphaticallydrawncontourof the veilshape
itself.Thisservesto tauten the spacethat it contains;but sinceit is held free of and in tension
withthe framingedgeitself,and sincethe flat materialityof the surfacepassesthroughit, the
effectis oftautnesswithoutenclosure.In the 1954Veils,the limitsofthe veilshapeare relatively
fluid,therebyproducinga Pollock-like effectof interiorincidentslackeningin intensitytoward
the framingedges. In the bronzeVeils,however,the limits are so firmlyestablishedas to
suddenlybreakthe intensityof the interiorincidentand create an imagethat is wrenchedfree
fromthe framingedges.Thiscontributesto one obviousdifferencein feelingbetweenthe two
sets of Veils.The earlier evokeinsubstantialphenomena,indeedresembleinsubstantialphe
nomena;the later evokesubstantialthings,but thingswhosesubstantialityis so illusoryas not to
resembleanythingin the world.If WilliamHazlitt'sfamousdescriptionof Turner'spicturesis
appropriateto the earlierVeils—"picturesof nothingand verylike"—then the later Veilsare
picturesof somethingand veryunlike.
Theformof the veilsilhouetteis particularlyimportantfor the successof these pictures.If
kept too far insidethe framingedge or if highlyirregularin contour,the imagetends to read
separatelyfromthe ground,at timesto highlydramaticeffectbut an essentiallysculpturaleffect
that is foreignto Louis'sbest work—at least,foreignto it unlesscheckedand counterposed.For,
26 as KenworthMoffetthas pointedout, the silhouettedveilimageis ineluctablysculptural. One
of the greatestachievementsof the Veilsis that they preservethe powerand plasticityof the
sculptural,but also subvertit, renderingit illusoryand pictorial,accessibleto eyesightrather
27 than to touch. Theveilimagesdo not read as tangiblethings;all that is tangibleaboutthem is
the flatnessthey havein commonwiththeir support.Thisis whythey are veryunlikethingsin
the world.Andyet, they do partakeof the traditionalseriousnessand gravityof the sculptural.
Just as Pollockrearrangedthe componentsof traditionalmodelingto dissipatethe sculptural
fromillusionism, so Louisdoes.Hedoesit in part byforcingtonalityand monochromy to read as
color,in part by refusingto let the detailingof his picturesbe perceivedas figurationindepen
dent of color,and in part bythe flatteningand disembodying producedbystainingitself.Butthe
drawingof the outerlimitsof the veilimageis especiallycrucialin this regard.Byconcentrating
his attentionon these limits,Louisdiscoveredthere muchof his paintings'expressivepower.
 52

WithLoam (page 101),the gently tapered sides of the image define a bilaterally symmetrical
plane franklydivideddownthe center, the vertical of that divisionrepeating the verticality of the
picture's edges. Drawingplaced near the edges of a picture is more inherently abstract than that
placed within the picture since it has less room in which to be read in a referential way.Here, the
abstractness of the picture's edges is brought into the dead center of the picture itself, and the
drawingthat marks the limits of the veil image is close enough to the picture's edges to be read
abstractly,yet not so rigidlyaligned with them as to make the picture seem either inert or overly
contained. It was important that the sides of the image be pulled in to form a shape geo
metrically different from that of the pictorial rectangle. In Bower (page 105) and a number of
other so-calledmonadicVeils,which followedthe bronze Veils,Louisaccentuated this shaping by
using images with steeper edges. Because there is less drawn incident within the shape of the
veil, Louiswas prevented from recalling the picture's edges there. He therefore set the shape of
the image against the drawingof these edges; by diagonallybracing the image against them, and
throwing the weight of its drawing out toward them, he made them a part of the picture in
another way.(This method has obviousimplicationsfor the Unfurleds.)
Whilethe image in Bower is symmetricalin shape, that symmetryis opposed by the denser
and darker right-hand section of the image, then restored by the exposed red-orange margin at
the extreme left. Louisfrequently used exposed colors at the edges of the darker veils (creating
them either by stopping the dark scrim just short of the limits of the brighter colors underneath
or by adding them after the scrim had been laid on). They function as drawn accents to direct
the focus of the eye, and they soften the darker, monochromatic edges they abut— in both
respects, performinglike Cezanne'smultiple contour drawingto mediate between the inside and
outside of the shape. In GoldenAge (page 99), trails of dark pigment hanging down from the
sides of the veil fulfill a similar function. Michael Fried is correct in saying that Louis need
hardly have bothered about softening the contours with this kind of incident since even the most
28 firmlydrawn contours do not read in a tactile way. Nevertheless,their accenting function is an
important one. In GoldenAge Louis carefully wiped (even conceivablybrushed) the collected
pigment at the bottom of the veil so as to form a sequence of similar accents there. Theyfunction
as headstones from which the Gothic arched drawing in the interior of the veil seems to rise.
Louisfrequently providedbases for the veils from the spreading pigment itself. This can be seen
in Beth Rash (page 107),where Louisalso stopped the dark scrim just short of the top of the veil
image (as he did in many such pictures), leaving a radiant multicolored fringe visible there.
Whilethis represents the point at which he began pouring the paint, the effect is opposite, for as
the veil image seems to rise from its base it ends with the freedom of water at the height of a
29 fountain. In some of the monadic Veilsand the later Italian Veils,like Italian Bronze (page
121),where the paint was poured in more regular stripes, the effect of the round-toppedexposed
30 colors is of delicate "dawn-lithillocks" that open an ethereal space rather like that in Chinese
landscapes.
The use of darker wings or frames for the Veils,as I said earlier, was a particularly fertile
approach. We see it in Golden Age. These darker side panels establish a firmly silhouetted
contour for the whole veil image, but they also serve to disengagethe interior of that image from
HenriMatisse.Dance(first version).1909.Oilon canvas,8' 6M>"
x
its external silhouetted contour, for the interior therefore does not have an external contour. 12' 9/2".The Museumof ModernArt, NewYork.Gift of NelsonA.
They also function as stabilizing posts with the exposed colors along the "lintel" of the veil Rockefellerin honorof AlfredH. Barr,Jr.
 53

dancing between them. Just as important, however,they serve to flatten and tauten the veil
image,not onlyby directing the eye to its opposite limits but also by replicating the effect of very
bright illuminationfalling frontally on a form in nature, which causes it to be flattened as well as
lightened. In such instances, the effects of shading and chiaroscuro are minimized,relegated to
the very boundaries of forms, which therefore seem to be pushed out and extended by the
stretching brightness and flatness of their frontal interiors; and their darker contours, jux
taposed with the even greater brightness outside, seem to hesitate in the definitions they
provide.A similar sense of sculptural form dissolvedby illumination is characteristic of Louis's
Veils.Where earlier luminism depicted such an effect, Louis'sversion embodies it.
It was probablythe use of wings in the bronze Veilsthat led Louisto begin to think of their
surfaces as modular,which in turn led him to new kinds of veil pictures. Before followingtheir
development, however,I want to address the most important method that Louis employed to
subvert the sculptural quality of the veil image while maintaining its plastic force, which he
derived from Matisse. It is usual to see the impact of Matisse as coming later in Louis's
development,when he began "uncovering"the bright colors that went down first in making the
Veils,but Kenworth Moffett has astutely observed that a most basic lesson of Matisse's art (as
31 basic even as its construction by color) actually lies in the silhouetted darkness of Louis'sVeils.
Matisse'sart came to maturity when he blended Impressionist luminismand Symbolistflat
color painting in such a way as to generate light through thinly applied intense color (thus also
blending Gothic spirituality and Mediterranean decoration). The specific clues he took from the
classicist Pierre Puvis de Chavannes and from Neo-Impressionism(the first modern style to
blend luminism and decorative flatness, albeit with an echo of closed, modeled form) led him to
a frescolike conception of painting (of tinting color on white). Unprecedented, however,is the
form of illusionismthat Matisse achieved. While it is an openly dispersed illusionism,affording
an allover sense of luminosity,as in Impressionism,it is not identifiedwith the paint surface. The
paint surface, as paint, is more modestly given by diluted pigment to allow greater color
saturation and color intensity, and to allow light to be generated in the optical dazzle produced
by the contrasts of saturated, intense colors.And, most importantly,the paint surface, as surface,
is never entirely aligned or identified with its color. The contrasting colors that provide the
illusion of light are spatially dislocated one from the next, thereby prying away the illusionism
from literal identification with the flatness of the surface. This sense of spatial dislocation
between areas of color is partly innate to Matisse'suse of high-intensitycolor,which necessarily
accentuates the tonal contrasts in color.But Matisse dramatized this dislocationby means of the
extremely sculptural form of drawing by which he established the boundaries between adjacent
colors. Most noticeably in the great "decorative"period around 1910,in pictures like Dance, he
used sculptural contour drawing to contradict the flatness of the color areas on each side of the
contour,pulling illusionismaway from the surface in the contrast between a sculptural contour
and its spatially discontinuous (flat) interior, and then returning it to the surface as one's eye
carries over the contour to the flat exterior beyond. As Moffett observed, this was precisely
Louis'smethod in the Veils.
It was a method that linked Matisse to the Motherwellof the Elegies and to the Pollockof
MorrisLouis.Crown.1958.Acrylicresin on canvas,8' 3" x 11'11". the black stain pictures, both of whom also used the contradiction of sculptural contours and flat
Privatecollection surfaces to open space in flatness and to provide the traditional authority that imagery brings,
 54

but without isolating the imageryon top of that flatness. Louis must have used masking of some
kind to establish the firm contouring of his images. Their interiors tend to read as if slightly
behind the surface. The firmness of the contouring advances them to the surface. At the same
time, the flattening effect of the staining counteracts the plasticity of the contouring,for staining
permitted Louis"to describe a firm and regular edge without havingit become a cutting one as it
would on a non-absorbent surface: the slight, hardly visible bleed left by soaking serves to
32 deprive an edge or contour of sharpness but not necessarilyof clarity or firmness." Besides,the
canvas is perceived as running continuously through the contour. As a result, whole sets of
polarities coexist in these remarkable pictures: clarity and complexity,three-dimensionalityand
flatness, rigid frontality and soft depth, imagery and alloverness,mass and luminosity,linearity
and space.

THE MODULAR IMPLICATIONS of the bronze Veilswith dark panels at each side led Louis to
produce what might be called panel Veils,where the veil shape is broadlydividedinto four or five
upright zones. In making these, Louisabandoned the diagonal and jagged drawing of the bronze
Veils and poured paint only from the top of the canvas, thereby providing a form of vertical
drawing comparable to that of the broadly divided triadic bronze Veilsbut without their linear
qualities. If the panel Veilsare less successful than the preceding ones, it is not only because
they contain less rich incident. It is also because Louis had difficulty knowing quite how to
articulate the interior of each panel. If too evenlyand individuallyfilled it wouldtend to separate
from its neighbors;if the opposite, it would seem somehowtoo tentatively formed. Twodifferent,
but parallel options existed: either assert the separateness of the panels by actually pulling them
apart, or assert their similarity by multiplyingthem and keeping them together as a whole. The
first option produced split Veilswhere as many as four narrow panels are pulled apart from each
other with more bare canvas in between, their tops usuallyrounded, and their lower extremities
set on a puddled-paint base. These are extremely dramatic paintings. However,they suffer from
seeming too much to be images,while additionallyreinforcingthe fact that the success of Louis's
art crucially depends on his avoidingan identification of mass and line. Once he began consis
tently pouring lines of paint, it became extremely important that these lines did not appear to
have mass. They do in the split Veils.Their darkness and density make them problematical.
The panel Veilswere painted before September 1958,the split Veilsboth before and after
that date. Before continuing to look at the other option suggested by the panel Veils (multiple
striping), let us consider another developmentfrom the bronze Veils,prior to September 1958.In
this development,instead of emphasizingtheir modularityand verticality,Louiseffaced them by
makingholistic, monadicVeils.Again,the paint was poured onlyfrom the top, but was allowedto
fall in jagged patterns. The most successfulare those where there are sufficientpoured layers to
give density and richness to the single plane (but not so many as to make it opaque) and where
the sides are sharply pulled in to emphatically shape it. Those with fewer poured layers suffer
from the same tentativeness as some of the panel Veils.Those with more gently sloped sides
insufficiently disengage the planar image from the rectangular plane of the canvas. In both
cases, the potential problems with these kinds of pictures are associable with the singleness of
their images, which had either to be dramatized or divided to avoid visual monotony.In a few
pictures, among them Bower (page 105),Louis darkened the right-hand quarter of the veil to
 modifyits spatialevenness,therebyalso addingweightand dignityto these quietlycontained
works;and in others,he emphasizedtheir singlenesswithhigh-keyed color,reducingthe density
of the coveringdark scrimin orderto revealit.
At this point,Louisconflatedthe allusivenessof these streakedand atmosphericpictures
withthe modularorder of the panelVeilconceptionin a groupof monadicVeilsmadefromthe
multiplestripingof either parallelpours of paint—as in Beth Rash (page 107)—or parallel
flamelikeconfigurations,achievedbypleating,containedbya darkscrim.Whatis unusualabout
these extremelypoeticworksis that the spatialpositionof the scrimis actuallyexpressedas
lyingon top of the imageformedby the multicoloredstripesor flames.Whereasin the bronze
Veils(and in other monadicVeils),the scrimcan onlyveryexceptionally be perceivedseparately
fromthe veilimage—for it is what bindstogetherthat imageand the detailingit contains—it
nowseemsto comprise"a cascadeof thin mistthat poursfromthe figure,obeyingthe forceof
33 gravitywhichthe figuredefies." Since the modularpours of paint so exactlycomprisethe
image,theyseemto rise with it. Louisthereforeprovidedanothersurfaceof painton top of the
image,in whichthe forceofgravityis reasserted.Themistyqualityofthis layeris attributableto
the aerialthinnessof its application,whichallowsthe brightcolorsunderneathto showthrough
more,whileblurringthem atmospherically at the sametime. The picturesof this type mostly
date after September1958.
Once again, two options suggestedthemselves,which Louispursued late in 1958and
(mainly)in 1959.One involveddevelopmentof the layeringidea. In a group of large 1959
paintings—includingthree great masterpieces:Number1-89,Mem,and Saraband—he dras
ticallyreducedthe densityof the scrim,allowingextraordinarily rich and emotivecolorto show
through.
Number1-89 (page115)uses the jagged,base-pleateddrawingof a bronzeVeillikeLoam
(page101).Freed fromthe containing,stiffeningdarkness,its drawingappearsto flare up the
34 surface:the "wall of gaseousyellowexpandslike a giant flame." The organic metaphors
suggestedin all of the Veilsby Louis'smannerof workinghere assumetranscendentalaspects.
Thepictureevokesthe first firesof creationor somemoltencore of naturalenergy.It has been
35 comparedto Turner'slate pictures, and also bears comparisonwith Still'swork,seeming,in
effect,to be an X-rayedStill. Whereasthe most intense color in the bronzeVeilswas often
reservedfor the sidesand top,here the top of the veilis croppedoffand the mostintensecolor
appearsat the sidesand bottom.Thescrimis carefullyappliedso as not to coverthe vividflames
at the baseofthe work,and sinceit comprisesnot a blackor brownbut a reddishpurplescrim,it
is carriedjust beyondthe sidesof the veilwhere,sedimentedon the surfaceof the bare canvas,
its ownhigh-keyed colorbecomesmostnoticeable.
Mem(page117)returnsto the side-paneledformatof a bronzeVeillikeGoldenAge(page
99).Here,however,the interiorof the veilis left exhilaratingly
open,and spatiallywarpedbythe
unequalpressureof the darkuprightsat the sides.Morethan in anypreviouspicture,the image
quotientis effacedto producewhat readsas a wallor sheet of colorthat is stretchedand pulled
outward.Nevertheless,the grandiosesymmetryand heraldryof its design,showingthroughthe
glowingwall,reassertsits iconicforce.Likeall the otherVeils,it evokesbotha thingin nature(a
cliffor an aurora,perhaps)and a vitalist"becoming"of nature,whilerefusingthe specificityof
either association—refusingthe first in its mural-likespread,whichresistscentralization,and

ICRS'" ' "Jewess!

 56

therefore the containment and density of worldly things, and refusing the second in its own
intrinsic tangibility as a painted thing.
Saraband (page 111)reasserts the sense of detailing provided by the bronze Veils.It may
well be contemporaneouswith the unveiled triadic picture known as Blue Veil (page 109),for
they share looselyflapping wings at the sides—also reminiscent of those in a 1954picture like
Salient (page 87). In both Saraband and Blue Veil, Louis seems interested in redefining the
relationship of the veil image to the sides of the support by pouring waves of paint into the
picture from the sides. In Blue Veilthey are broad, few in number, of the same blue color, and
produce an irregular contour; in consequence,they function similarlyto those in Salient: that is
to say, suggestinga Pollock-likeslackening of intensity of incident toward the edges. In Sara
band, however,they are narrow,multiple, multicolored,and sweep into the picture one directly
above the other down the sides; in consequence, they function similarly to the side-placed
uprights in Mem, that is to say,suggestingan intensification of pictorial force toward the edges.
They are somewhat more densely covered by the scrim that covers this picture—or, rather, as above: MorrisLouis.Spawn.1959-60.Acrylicresin on canvas,6 x
36 MichaelFried has observed,that seems to billowin front of it. 8'. CollectionLadyd'Avigdor
Goldsmid,London
As I said earlier, the chronologyof the Veils is not certain. However,it is reasonable to opposite: KennethNoland.Flutter.1960.Oilon canvas,67 x 67/4".
CollectionAgnesGund
assume that their developmentin 1959led increasinglyto the use of modular striping. Certainly,
the last distinct group of Veils,the smaller pictures known as Italian Veils (because they were
37 first exhibited in Italy), is based on that method.And the method was subsequentlyextended in
those pictures of late 1959or early 1960,where Louis finallydispensed with the covering scrim,
revealing linear pours of intense color either overlappingeach other, as in WhileSeries II (page
125),or laid down side by side with narrow crevices of bare canvas between them, as in Where
(page 127).The Italian Veils retain the scrim. However,they use it discretely.Whereas earlier
monadic Veils with modular striping had emphasized its atmospheric properties in order to
soften the underneath structure, the Italian Veilsemphasize its flattening potential, and with it
the relationship of the veil shape—as a flat plane—to the flat plane of the support. This option
to layering which emerged from the modular monadic Veils also produced some expressively
shaped veil images—among them, the marvelousvertical, Beth Chaf (page 113)— but it tended,
by and large, to lead Louis away from the steep-edged images that had dominated his art since
the conclusion of the bronze Veil series. Almost all the Italian Veils contain images more
rectangular in shape than in any previous picture.
I referred earlier to the danger in this approach: that the image might seem insufficiently
disengagedfrom the rectangle of the picture itself. In making this group,however,Louis strove
for greater congruity of image and support, using the vertically of the internal detailing and of
the sides of the image to tie both inside and outside of the image to the picture's edges—even to
the extent of asking us to read the strips of bare canvas that abut the picture's edges as parts of
the module from which the image is composed. In this respect, they relate to Veilslike Mem,
where Louis also sought to dissipate the imagist aspects of the veil format. Unfortunately,it did
not quite turn out that way in some of the Italian Veils,which tend to read as discrete planes
standing on the bottom of the picture surface, even in front of the picture surface. This is partly
a result of the very rectangularity of their imagery,which the eye quicklypicks out as a surrogate
picture plane, disengagingit from the actual picture plane, which falls transparently away;and
partly a result of their smaller size, which means that they can be more quickly grasped as
 57

38 discrete imagesthan pictures which occupymore of the visual field. It was probablyto
compensatefor the senseof tactilitythat accruesto themforthese reasonsthat Louislightened
somevisuallyby the simpleexpedientof turningthem upsidedown.
Thebest ofthem,in anyevent,are not onlyas authoritativeas anyearlierpaintingsbut also
moreinherentlyabstract.The symbiosisof imageand support,whensuccessful,togetherwith
the sheer simplicityof the conception —whichallowedLouisto set downcolorsvery frankly
besideeach other and bind them togetherin vivid,luminoussheets—producedpictureswhose
logicseemssomehowmorepurelyvisualthan almostany sincethe 1954Veils.As in the earlier
series,this meantthat Louiscouldworkon a smallerscale.Whilemoremodestpicturesthan the
grand,epicworksthat precededthem in 1958and 1959,the ItalianVeilsare extremelyconcen
trated pictures.Notonlydo theyconcludethe secondVeilseries,but theyalsomarkthe pointat
whichLouiscan no longerbe consideredan AbstractExpressionist artist.
Andyet, the temptationto drawtoo firm a dividingline in Louis'scareer after the Veils
shouldbe resisted. If the developmentjust recountedshowsanything,it is that no single
conceptiondominatedLouis'sart after he finishedmakingthe bronze Veils.He, in effect,
39 dissected,redistributed,and reorderedfeatureslatent in the bronzeVeils. Thisled him into
severalparallel directions,whichhe began to explorein the Veilshe made after the bronze
group,and whichhe continuedto exploreafter his first French& Companyexhibitionin New
Yorkin April1959untilthe summerof 1960,whenthe firstUnfurledsweremade.AfterApril1959
he exploredthemwitha greaterfreedomthan hitherto,whichis alsoto saywithless discipline.
Thisled himinto moredirections,a numberofwhichweredeadends,and noneofwhichwereas
productiveas thosehe had recentlyexplored,until he discoveredthe formatof the Unfurleds.
I referred earlier to the pictureswhere Louisuncovered,in effect,the linear pours of
intense colorthat lay beneath the modularmonadicVeils.One of the earlier of these, While
SeriesII (page125),comprisescolored"fingers"laiddownon top of,as wellas overlapping, each
otherto produce,purelyfromthese modularunits,somethingakinto the spatiallayeringcreated
by the coveringscrimin earlier modularmonadicVeils.It is knownthat picturesof this kind
werein existenceby the springof 1960;whetherthis onewaspaintedbeforeor after the Floral
seriesis a matter of speculation.Butthe Floralseriesdoesdevelopthis kindof spatiallayering,
accentuatingthe tangibilityof its modularcomponentsin the process.Louisbegan to build
constructions,as it were, fromthese modularcomponents,crossingand interlockingthem, at
timesleavingthem anchoredto the bottomedgeof the picturebut moreoftenallowingthem to
drift in towardthe center.In this respect,they recallsomeof the 1954Veilsformedby overlap
pinggesturalpoursof paint roughlycenteredacrossthe canvas.The best of them are glorious
pictures,coloristicallyextremelyrich and full of dramaticincident.However,they do sufferfor
the same reason as the comparable1954pictures;the overlaidpours are inescapablyCubist
becauseeach can be separatelyread as a shape,and are inescapablyphysicalbecausethey are
self-evidently flungon the canvas,for whichreasonthey seemalso somewhatarbitrary(alter
natively,somewhatcontrived).
In order to bind them more decisivelytogether,therefore,Louisdrasticallyaccentuated
their centering,influencedin this respectby Noland's1958concentriccirclepictures.Someof
40 MorrisLouis.Number99.1959-60.
Acrylic
resinoncanvas,8' 3" x the Floralswere shownat Louis'sMarch-April1960exhibitionat French& Company.It was
11'10".TheCleveland
MuseumofArt,Cleveland,
1968 presumablyafter that exhibition,then, that Louismade the generallysuperiorAlephseries
58

pictures. Here the poured swathes of paint seem to radiate from the center rather than drift in
toward it, this effect being emphasized by the broadening of the swathes near the edges of the
picture, by the Noland-likesuspension of the whole image, and by Louis'smarking the center by
an oval-shapedveil of darker paint from which the colored swathes seem to emerge,just as they
did around the perimeters of the Veils themselves. In some of the pictures, however— for
example,Aleph Series V (page 133)—the image is not floated but anchored to the bottom edge,
with colors emerging on only three sides. Here, the comparison with the Veils is even more
evident. It was possiblyat this time that Louismade the imposingpicture called Beth (page 129),
which conflates the effect of a highly colored 1959Veil and of a bottom-anchored Aleph by
coveringthe roughlycentered earlier pours of paint with a vividred veil shape.
If the chronology of these pictures is as I have presented it, Louis, having begun by
attempting to uncover color from the Veilsand structure his pictures purely from juxtapositions
of color,had returned to a method close to that of the Veils.Whilethe Florals are generally less
successful than the Alephs, some of the simpler Florals (page 131)do make color perspicuous
and present to us in a way unlike any previous Louis picture. Color spreads openly across the
surface as flat surface color, reflecting rather than exuding light, and impresses less by its
homogeneity than by its contrasts and differences. This ultimately Matissean concept—con
struction by means of color—was the one to which Louis subsequently tended. And while
Noland'suse of intense color undoubtedlyhelped Louisin this direction, he was more specifically
helped by the influence of Newmanand Still. Mostof the remaining1959-60transitional pictures
can be categorized according to their dependence on one or the other of these influences—and
according to how these pictures are extrapolated from the Veils,although they emphasize color
in a way that the Veilsdid not. The Newman-influencedworks developedthe modularity of the
Veilsand the regularity of their drawing;the Still-influencedworks,their layeringand the jagged
irregularity of their drawing.
Newman's March 1959 French & Companyexhibition immediately preceded Louis's. But
Louis had already met Newmanprior to that date, and if he had not seen Newman'spaintings in
the original before then he most probablysaw them reproduced in the summer 1958issue ofArt
News. Newman'sinfluence can be seen in the deadpan divisiondown the center of some bronze
Veils,in the monochromeplanarity of the later Veils,and in the repeated columns of Veilslike
Mem. However,these are subdued and absorbed influences.What followedin 1959-60was very
different indeed.
The explicitlyNewman-influencedworks emerge from pictures like Air Desired (page 123),
above:MorrisLouis.Thperand Spread.1959.Acrylicresinon canvas,
a late 1959symmetricallysplit modular Veilwith extremely regular drawing. In a sequence of 8' 9" x 6' 4".Privatecollection
pictures which presumably began immediatelyafter this one, Louis ran through a whole set of below:MorrisLouis.Roseate.1960.Acrylicresin on canvas,6' KM"
compositionalvariants. He further opened the center by pulling the two veil elements to the x 8' 9/4".GreenvilleCountyMuseumof Art, Greenville,S.C.Ac
sides, discoveringa tripartite format with a veil-liketapering shape of bare canvas between two quiredin memoryof BetsyDewAshleywith fundsprovidedby her
multicoloredwings. He tried flattening the side shapes with the same evenlyapplied color,then friendsand The LibertyCorporationand a donationby Dr.Marcella
Brenner
filling in the center shape too with a different color.He tried further dividinga picture into five
oppositeabove:MorrisLouis.AmbiIII. 1959.Acrylicresinon canvas,
tapered zones, then filling in the zones with more loosely applied paint. He compressed the 7' 4" x 11'8". The Fort WorthArt Museum,Fort Worth.Gift of
center zone and regularized its drawing until it became a stripe or a band of bare canvas MarcellaLouisBrenner
between two differentlycolored planes. He multiplied these colored planes in irregular bands of oppositebelow:MorrisLouis.OmegaIV.1959-60.Acrylicresin on
color running down horizontal canvases, at times contouring the bands with Still-likejagged canvas,12' x 8' 8%".Privatecollection
 edges.He orientedsomediagonallyacrossthe pictures.And,simplifyingthem, he returnedto
the tripartite,Newman-like formatof a centralizedband, but reversedthe figure-ground rela
tionship.Insteadof providinga bandof bare canvasbetweentwocoloredplanes,he laida single
coloredband downthe center of an otherwisebare canvas.Thisbandwas constructed,in fact,
froma fewseparatepoursofthe same(orverysimilar)colorpaint,whichoverlapto producethe
effect of an extremelynarrowmonochromatic veil. In some of these Columnpictures,Louis
accentuatedthis effect by leavingthe top of the columnof paint just visiblebelowthe top
framingedge.In most,however,he croppedinto the columnalongboth top and bottomedges.
Andin someof the picturesof bothtypes,he croppedin the sidesleavingonlynarrowmarginsof
canvasto the left and right of the column.A selectionof the earlierworksof this wholeseries
was includedin Louis'sspring1960exhibitionat French & Company. The Columnpaintings,
however, wereprobablymadeafter that date. Louisfirstshowedthemto Greenbergin Augustof
that sameyear.
The Columnsare undoubtedlythe best of these Newman-influenced pictures,and of very
great interest for our understandingof the genesisof the Stripes,includingtheir use of active
croppingfor compositional purposes.Andyet,theyare hardlyinspiredpictures.TheyshowLouis
addressingan alternativeformof centeringto that of the Alephs.Byconfrontationally facingthe
viewer,the centered columnboth lockshis spatial entrance into the picture and causes the
41 pictureto openout laterallyby renderingthe side edgesless conspicuous.That,at least, is the
logicofNewman's use ofthe device.WithLouis'spictures,however, the stainedcolumnsseemtoo
separatelycontrasted against the bare ground,whose side edges tend simplyto disappear
visually.Heattemptedopposingtwocolumnsacrossthe center of the picture,placingeachclose
to the framingedge,and in a related developmentopposingtwo sets of twinedcolumnsin a
similarway.But in these, the spacingof the columnsand their relationshipto the side edges
seemschosennot willed.Likethe Columnpaintingsthemselves,they lack that sense of inev
itabilitythat marksthe best of Louis'sart.
If Newman'sinfluenceled Louisto makesomedullpaintings,Still'sled himto makesome
outrageousones.Accordingto Greenberg,Louis'sinterest in Stillamountedto an obsessionat
times.Wehavenoticedits effecton the jaggeddrawingof the bronzeVeilsand of later,highly
coloredVeilslikeNumber1-89. As part of Louis's1959-60dissectionand analysisof the Veil
format,he beganexaggerating the sharpnessof Still'sdrawingandthe layeringofthe paintareas
it bounded.TheFantasia-likepictures,nowknownas the Safand Ambiseries,that resultedare
undoubtedlyfailedworks.Greenberghas stated that Louisrepudiatedthem as firmlyas he did
42 thosemadebetweenthe 1954and 1958-59Veils. Theironlyinterestis historicalin showinghow
Louis,as he unveiledthe highlycoloredjaggedlayersrangedoneabovethe other,discoveredthat
their peaksappearedto pointboth downand up the picture.Fromthis realizationemergedthe
Omegaseriesin whichindividual jaggedpoursof paint,rangedsidebysidedownoppositeedges
of the picture,symmetrically faceeach otheras theyreach intoan opencenter.It seemscertain
that theywereoriginallyconceivedin a horizontalformat(whichassociatesthemwiththe Ambi
series) and that Louiswas dissatisfiedwith this orientation,for he consideredcuttingone in
half,whichwouldhaveproducedtwopicturessimilarin somerespectsto late workslike Where.
Nonewere exhibitedin Louis'slifetime,so the verticalorientationnowacceptedfor them is
necessarilyconjectural.However, not onlydoesit makefor better paintingsbut it was the only

«?rrSaHSSSesSSC-j":*
 60

reasonablealternativeleft to Louisother than keepingthem horizontalor cuttingthem in half.

Althoughby no meansof a classwiththe finestof Louis'spictures,the best of the Omegas
43 are not only interestinghistorically. The range of separatelyapplied colorscombinesand
interminglesthe earth tones of the earlier veil shapes and the more high-keyedhues that
appearedat their edges,and addsnewpastelshadeswhichserveto mediatebetweenthem.The
eyeis carriedbothup and downthe parallelpoursandfromsideto sideacrossthem;duringthe
latter movement,the surfaceof the pictureseemsto swelloutwardbecauseof the perspectival
effectof the drawing.The idea of opposingtwo roughlysymmetricalgroupsof roughlyparallel
elementsso that the center remainedopenwascertainlya compellingone.Alongthe edgesthe
separate identities of the colors are most visible;nearer the center they opticallyvibrate,
dissolvingtheir separationas they do so. And yet, once more,there is somethingnot quite
inevitableabout these pictures.The croppingof their sides seems somewhatarbitrary;the
horizontalityof their drawingover-echoes the upperand loweredges,visuallycompressing them;
and their color,whilefinelypacedand articulated,is somewhatblandin its total effect.
Thesepicturesprobablydate fromthe winterof 1959/60or the springof 1960.Throughout
this period, Louisseemed concernedwith findinga format that wouldallow color a truly
structuralrole in his pictures,one that wouldpermitmultipletonalchangesin his use of color,
whichis the necessaryresultofcolorappliedin highintensity.Whetheror not the later Veilslike
Wherepreceded or followedthe Still-influenced and Newman-influenced developmentsjust
recounted,both of these developmentscarriedLouishardlyanyfurther alongto makingcolor-
structuredpicturesthan these last Veils.Butthey did suggestnewcompositional possibilities.
At this point,the chronologicallogicof Louis'sdevelopmentis especiallydifficultto fathom.
He tried reversingthe centeredAlephformat and conflatingit with that of the Omegasby
pouringpoints of paint into the picture from all sides,leavingan open center.He also tried
openingout the componentsof the twined columnsby pouringstreamersof paint into the
picturefromthe sidesand fromthe outerlimitsof the top edgeso that theytwinedveryloosely
togetheraroundan opencenter.And,possiblythus remindedof howhe had treated the sidesof
Saraband bypouringin paint diagonally, as wellas recallingthe formatof the Omegas,he began
isolatingsequencesof paralleldiagonalpoursby layingthem downin singlesets of four or five
lines;puttingtwo such sets downside by side, reversingthe directionof each set to form a
tepeelikeimage,arrangingtwo sets so as to formone diagonaldirectionwith a blankvertical
strip of canvasbetweenthem, pointingtwowidelyseparatedsets towardthe oppositebottom
cornersof the canvas,and any numberof combinationsof these methods.Then,havingalmost
exhaustedthe optionsavailableto him,he pouredtwosuchsets downand into the canvas,one
fromeach side.
It is impossibleto knowif this solutionwas the last he arrivedat or if it was arrivedat
independentlyof the others. (It couldhavesimplybeen noticedin someof the morecomplex
permutationsof otherapproaches:for example,in the centerportionofa picturethat comprises
twotepee-shapedconfigurations.) In anyevent,it was an inspiredsolution.Insteadof worrying
aboutcomposing,about integratingthe variousbanksof drawnpaint, and insteadof seekinga
centeredlock to hold them together,Louiseffectivelydraggedthe componentsof his pictures
apart and left it to the framingedgesto keepthemtogether.Louisconsideredthesepictures,the
Unfurleds,his mostambitiousworks.
 61

THEVERYWORDS we use to describefullyrealizedworksof art—unity,wholeness,cohesion,

4 integration—referto the additionof their components,whethermanyor few,in sucha waythat
they combineas one.Theyalsocarry moralimplications: whateveris madewholehas integrity,
soundness,honesty.Insofaras manymodernworksof art presentthemselvesas parts tangibly
Conception,development,and Symbolist
associationsof Unfurledsof 1960-61;conception assembledto makea whole(ratherthan, as in earlierart, a somehowpreexistentwholemadeup
and developmentof Stripesof 1961-62 of parts), their integrityis manifestedsimultaneously with their structure.The objectof their
structuring—its subject,even—is the creationof that integrity.Thisis oneofthe waysin which
aspects of techniqueassume heightenedimportancein modernart. Whiletechniqueis also
importantbecauseit can actuallyact as a meansto inspiration,its significancein the sense I
refer to here is different,thoughnot unrelated.Insofaras we recognizein the structureof the
workof art that it is a hand-fabricated thing,techniqueevidencesits veryhumanity:the working
hand is the moralcenter of the art.
Thishelpsto explainwhyCezanne'sblock-building conceptionofpainting,for example,has
exertedsuch a powerfulholdon modernart. It seemsintrinsicallymoreserious,morehumanly
manifested,than formsof paintingwhereweare givenlessvisibleevidenceof howthe pictureis
made,includingthe time taken to makeit. In this respect,it offersa modernequivalentof the
seriousnesstraditionallyimpartedby sculpturalmodeling,which,by dissectionand reassembly
of its components,Cezanneattemptedto match in seriousness.It also helps to explainwhy
overtlyexpressionistic art periodicallyassertsa fascination.Here,the actualstruggleof building
a pictureis expressed,a strugglewhosecombatantsare not onlythe parts of the picturesbut,
morebroadly,the personalityof the artist and the artistic,impersonalmeansat his disposal.In
additionto revealingthe constructionaland temporalaspectsofthe picture'screation,it reveals
peculiarlymortalaspects,whichpertain to the fragilityas wellas specificityof the artist'shold
on his expressivemeansand to the evanescenceas wellas literalnessof personalfeelingitself.
It may even be said that this struggleconstitutesthe modernequivalentto traditional
subjectmatter,that it replacesthe pre-moderndilemmaof howthe workof art can possessthe
outsideworldwith the moderndilemmaof how an artist's feelingscan be possessedin the
makingof art. Andyet, this is to drawtoo firma dividingline betweenmodernismand the past.
It also neglectsthe fact that modernismfrequentlyconflatesthese dilemmas —as in Matisse's
desireto possessin worksof art his feelingsfor the outsideworldwhenmodernismin art was
emphasizingthe autonomousidentityof art and thereforeits (and the artist's) alienationfrom
the world(and fromthe artist in the world,too).In this respect,overtlyexpressionistic art is a
representationof the terror of this isolation,as StanleyCavellput it, rather than "a representa
1 tion of the worldfromwithinthe conditionof isolationitself."
Louis'sart doesmanifestthe outsideworld.It doessofromwithinthat conditionof isolation
to whichCavellreferred.It alsoclearlymanifests,in the self-evidence of its fabrication,that it is
a man-made,humanlyfelt art. And yet, very often the constructional,temporal,and mortal
aspectsof pictorialcreation,whichmostclearlyassert its moralseriousnessas a humanlyfelt
manifestation,are minimized,even effaced,in Louis'sart. The Unfurledsand Stripesare es
peciallyproblematicalin this regard. We do see that they are constructed,that they are
temporallyconstructed,and that they are mortalconstructions.But noneof these featureshas
particularaestheticor pictorialsignificance whenwe see them.Indeed,the veryintegrityof the
Unfurledsand the Stripes,evenmorethan ofthe Veils,dependscruciallyuponLouis'ssuspending
 our perceptionof these things.It is preciselybecausetheir part-to-partstructureis "nowhere
2 evident,or nowhereself-declaring" but, rather,"self-cancelling,"
becausethe temporalityof the
processthat createdtheseworksis not perceivedas suchbut sublimatedin the instantaneityof
their reading;and becausetheyshowno evidenceof strugglebetweenthe demandsof art and of
3 personalfeelingbut, rather,assert the abstractnessof their inspiration,that the best of them
succeedas fullyrealized,integralworksof art.
In the Unfurleds(pages 135-145),even that most basic correlativeof integrity—the
holisticbondingof parts—is utterlyopposed.Insteadof integratingthe pictureby puttingthe
parts together,Louisseparatesthe parts, throwingtwoopposingbanksof multicoloredrivulets
4 againstthe oppositesidesof the picture. Wholeness(andtherebyintegrity)is discoveredin this
method,but it is a methodso contraryto mostearlierproceduresthat the kindof wholenessis
necessarilydifferentfromthat achievedby earlier art. Certainly,these were the mostradical,
most extremepaintingsto have been madesince Pollock,Newman,and Still developedtheir
characteristicstyles.In manyways,these are moreradicaland extreme.Theydo not contain
anythingthat can be consideredimagery,not even in the waythat configurations within Pol
lock's,Newman's,and Still'spaintings—or Louis'sownVeils—can be so considered.There is
nothingwithin these picturesat all: their centersare literallyempty.
Noneof this, of course,makesthem intrinsicallybetter or worsepicturesthan less radical
ones.Whileit is true that innovationis regularlycalledfor in any art in order to maintainits
expressivepossibilities,it doesnot thereforeholdthat it can alwaysmaintainthem at the same
intensity.In modernart, moreover, whatsometimesseemsmostavant-gardeis actuallyacademic
(Symbolistpaintingwas the first exampleof this), and what seemsconservativeis sometimes
moredeeplyoriginalthan the avant-gardestylesthat surroundit (Matisse'spaintingin the 1920s
was the first clear exampleof this). In fact, it simplycannotbe assumedthat importantart will
looknewand remarkable,lb saythat it tendedto lookthat wayuntil the end of the pioneering
daysof modernismand tended to lookthat wayagainwhen modernismwas drasticallyover
hauledin AbstractExpressionism is, I know,tautological.Andyet, it is to suggesta distinction
betweenthe kind of innovationthat truly reordersand reimaginesthe traditionalexpressive
possibilitiesof the past and the kindthat, byseekingsimplyto escapethe traditionofthe past, is
doomedmerelyto copyit. For to actuallyset out to breakwith traditionrequiresan arrested
notionofwhattraditionis, and suchan approachinevitablyleavestraditionuntouched:it never
opensit to revisionin the first place.
I havehithertoarguedfor the traditionalnatureof Louis'sart. At the sametime,I feelfree
to turn aroundand saythat the Unfurledsbreakdrasticallywithtradition,but theydo so not as a
matterofprogramor intent.Wehavealreadyseen howtheir formatwas intuitivelydiscoveredin
the sequenceof optionsthat Louisexploredafter the Veils.Thequestionremainswhetheror not
they successfullymatch,in their extremity,what Louishad alreadydone,not to mentionwhat
had been doneby othersbeforehim.Greatnesssuggestssomethingdeep as wellas intense;at
first sight,the Unfurleds(and perhapsthe Stripesevenmore)mayseemtoo concentrated,too
circumscribed,to qualify.All art, however,imposesrestrictions,and modernart especiallyhas
oftenmadeits restrictivenessinto a virtue;isolatinga narrowfieldof inquiry,it minesit deeply,
remindingus that, in the end, it is intensitynot multiplicityof meaningthat counts.
It is indisputable,nevertheless,that much modernart, includingmuchmodernabstract
 63

art, doesseemto be thin and impoverished whencomparedto the art of the past. In an essay
called'Abstract,Representational, and so forth,"writtenin 1954,Greenbergsuggestedthat if we
do feel dissatisfiedwith abstract art, this dissatisfactionhas its source not so much in our
nostalgiafor the representationalas in our regretfor the absenceof three-dimensional illusion,
an abstract picture seeming"to offera narrower,more physicaland less imaginativekind of
5 experiencethan the illusionistpicture." He continued,however,by sayingthat perhaps the
literalnessof modernabstract art may come to be seen as offeringan equallyimaginative
experience,if not one of more "humaninterest" than the extrapictorialreferencesof older
illusionistart; and, also,that the illusionismof olderart maycometo be seen as "aesthetically
valuableprimarily because it enabled and encouragedthe artist to organizesuch infinite
subtletiesof lightand dark,of translucenceand transparence,into effectively pictorialentities."
Viewedhistorically,this argumentprovidesa justificationfor the post-Cubistaspects of
AbstractExpressionism, whosenew form of illusionismcast new interpretivelight on older
illusionistart. The commonalityof aesthetic intent, thus justified,betweenolder and newer
illusionismmaybe extendedto includeLouis.At the same time, there maybe an alternative
sourceof dissatisfactionin abstractart in that, after all,we do missthe multiplicityof meaning
offeredby earlier art and that we do so to the extent that abstractart is purelyabstract.As I
observedearlier,what differentiatesLouis'spicturesfrompreviousmodernabstractpicturesis
that their meaningcannotreadilybe traced back to formsbeyondtheir ownperimeters.Their
pictorialelementsdo not referto the worldto tell us oftheir derivation,as is the casewitheven
the most abstract Miro,say,and (ultimately)with every Mondrian —even every Pollockor
Newmanor Still,whichalsohaveworldlysources,althoughtheycannotbe readilyapprehended
exceptthroughknowledgeof these artists' early,immaturework.
It wouldseemto followthat the rangeof meaningin Louis'sart is narroweras comparedto
these, but in practicethis is not the case.Theactualexperienceof the workof these artists—
exceptMiro—is verylittle differentinsofaras perceptionof their worldlysourcesis concerned.
Indeed,it even seemsthat whiletheir workis more distancedfromthe worldthan Miro's,it
returnsus morequicklyto a wholeworldbecauseit doesso lessspecifically. Meaningstherefore
accumulatenot aroundthe pictorialelementsthemselvesbut aroundtheir configurations and
interrelations,and do so to the extent that individualpictorialelementsactuallyrefuseto be
read as meaningfulin themselves.Whensuccessfully realized,abstractworksof art of this kind
can makeus forgetthe oldermethodof accumulatingmeaning,indeed,can makeus rejoice,in
its absence,in the largenessand singlenessof their viewof the world.
This bringsus back to Greenberg'semphasison illusionism,in particularto the disem
bodied illusionismof post-Cubistforms of AbstractExpressionism, wherein the absence of
sculpturalmodelingeffectsa sense of release from the tangibilityof specificthings into the
wholenessof a spatialcontinuum.It takes us, in fact, evenfurtherbackto Impressionism, when
suppressionof tonal contrasts and emphasison colorwere first establishedas the principal
modernmethodsof remakingthe world as whole.Since then, avoidanceof tonal contrasts
(whichidentifyand separatethingsin the world,and in art dramatizethem) and concentration
insteadon color(whichmaskstonal contrastsin the world,and in art recoversthe worldfrom
dramatization)has been the often precariouspath to achievingaesthetic distancefrom the
practicalworldand to representationof the wholenessof the world,simultaneously.
 64

Wholeness,however,and its corollary —meaningsaccumulatedaround the interrela

tionshipof pictorialelements—are preciselywhatLouis'sUnfurledschallenge.Theirabsenceof
holisticbondingremovesthem frompossessingthe olderkind of pictorialintegrityand moral
seriousness;and the evenmoreabsoluteabstractnessof the Stripesoffersonlythe mosttenuous
and generalizedofworldlyhumanmeanings.Tbreplythat the Unfurledsreact historicallyto the
wayin whichintegrityand seriousnesscouldbe, and were,fakedin late 1950sformsof Abstract
Expressionism —and that the Stripesconsolidatetheir emphasison the aesthetic(whichtakes
them further fromthe practicalworld)—is onlypart of an answer,and not a lastingpart. So is
6 the replythat no kindofart is invariablyor intrinsicallysuperioror inferiorto anotherkind. The
questionsremainas to whetherthe neworderof the Unfurledsand the newabstractnessof the
Stripesdo, in practice,produceas tellingkindsof art as whatprecededthem,or art as capable
of beingsustained.Bothquestionsare inextricablefromadditionalonesconcerningour percep
tion of the quality and feelingconveyedby the worksat issue—which is also to say,our
perceptionof whetherthey do accumulatemeaning—and of their historicalposition.

THEUNFURLED SERIEScomprisesapproximately 160pictures(if one includesthe 26 "proto-

Unfurleds"whereLouisdiscoveredthe definitiveUnfurledformatand 40 pictureshe destroyed
becausethe blueswere not fast) madesometimebetweenthe earlysummerof 1960and early
1961.Theywerecertainlynot begununtil after Louis'sMarch-April1960exhibitionat French&
Company, nor until the end of the sequenceof transitionalpicturesdescribedin the previous
chapter (mostof whichwere also presumablymadeafter that exhibition).In April1960Louis
first obtainedhis Magnacolorin newlyformulatedbatchesin galloncans;the syruplikeliquidity
of the newpaint undoubtedlyfacilitatedthe productionof the Unfurleds.Whilehe was already
movingtowardlinear,rather than area, stainingbeforehe obtainedthe newpaint (forexample,
in Where),it is likelythat the liquidityof the paint encouragedhim to movefurther in this
direction.(Afterthis, he nevermixedhis colors,but onlyaddedresin or turpentinethinner to
controltheir saturationfrompale or transparentto intenseor opaqueand to varytheir texture
7 frommatteto glossy,therebyenlargingthe rangeofthe twenty-two colorshe used.) In July1960
he begancomplainingto his canvassuppliersaboutthe darkflecksthat marredthe whitenessof
the cottonduck.Thissuggeststhat the Unfurleds(or at least, the proto-Unfurleds) werebegun
bythen. (Hesubsequentlyusedan expensivecottonduckthat wasof higherqualityas wellas of
lighterweightand thereforemoreabsorbent.)In August1960Louisfirstshowedthe Unfurledsto
Greenberg,whochosetwoof them for an exhibitionof Louis'sworkat BenningtonCollegethat
October.WhenGreenbergnextvisitedLouis'sstudio,at the end of April1961,he wasfirst shown
the Stripes.
The two Unfurledschosenfor Bennington —Alpha and Delta8—were the onlytwo to be
stretchedin Louis'slifetime.Louisdid not attend the exhibition.In fact, he neversaw one of
these picturesstretched.
The two Benningtonpicturesare the mostpainterlyof a groupof abouta dozenpictures
wherefour or fiveroughlyparallel,graphicallydrawnpours (as in the proto-Unfurleds) stream
diagonallyintothe canvasfromits oppositesideedges,the innermostpouringsbeginningjust on
orjust slightlybelowthe pointsofthe top corners,and ending(in this group)approximately one
quarter of the wayin alongthe bottomedge.For reasonsI will explainin a moment,the very
 65

graphic drawingin this group of pictures tended to be less successfulthan the rivuletlikeform in
later Unfurleds. But when it is successful, preeminently in Gamma Pi (page 135),it somehow
abstracts and intensifies the very intentionality of drawing as a product of human will in a way
that the more automatic drawing of later Unfurledsdoes not, and in a way that would be even
9 further intensified in the Stripes. The tenseness of drawing in Gamma Pi is of rods bent and
forced awayfrom verticality,or imprisoningbars pulled open to allow escape into dazzlingwhite
freedom.
Pictures of this kind established the basic form of the Unfurleds: a frontal, bilaterally
symmetricalcompositionwhose painted elements abut an empty center resemblingthe negative
image of a veil shape. The resemblance is emphasizedin proportion to the evenness and tautness
of contour of the elements, especially of the two innermost elements. When evenly drawn, they
can be read as loomingup and out (like a veil) as well as falling down and in. More specifically,
once we acknowledgethe upward reading in one bank of elements and visuallycross the picture
to confirm it, the innermost elements in confirmingit carry upward the white space between
them. At this point, the direction of flowat the sides seems to reverse itself, movingdownwardin
oppositionto the upward movementof the center.
The effect is not unlike that produced in the Veilsby the contrast between the contour of
the veil shape and the drawingof the elements within it. But here, the elements contrasted with
the contour of the (now negative) veil shape are outside it, and the effect spreads to occupythe
whole picture. To this end, the taut contour of, especially,the innermost stained element is
crucially important since it holds each bank of elements together as a patterned, multicolored
block separated from the blank, white, uncoloredspace of the interior. On each side, the contrast
hinges on the taut inner contour of the innermost element, which visuallyswingsback and forth
between belongingto the element itself (and therefore the bank of elements it bounds) and to
the space inside. It functions as does the contour of a veil; as such, it carries sculptural intensity,
a fact which Louis capitalized on in later Unfurleds.
The way in which the innermost elements (and often their inner contours) meet the upper
corners of the picture is also important, as can be seen from a very unusual work,Alpha, where
the innermost two on each side fall within these corners. Alpha is an extremely imposing
picture, reminiscent in some respects of a dramatic early Newmanlike TheBeginning. Louisdid
emphasize the upper corners, but he did so by spanning each of them with the strongest tonal
contrasts (of black and yellow)the picture contains, possiblybecause he felt the need to harness
in the traces of his drawing the top as well as the side edges of the picture. If that was his
intention, it seems fair to say that he need not have bothered. Simplymarkingthe corner fulfilled
that same function more economically,in fact, more precisely,for the innermost elements of
Alpha tend actually to disengagethe drawingfrom the very explicit relationship to the shape of
opposite:BarnettNewman.TheBeginning.1946.Oilon canvas,40/a the support achieved in typical Unfurleds,while causing the top edge of the picture to seem
x 30Ms".The Museumof ModernArt,NewYork.Givenanonymously somewhat arbitrarily cut.
above: MorrisLouis.Alpha.1960.Acrylicresin on canvas,8' 9%" x A few of the Veils,among them Bower (page 105),and a few transitional 1959-60 pictures
12' 1".Albright-Knox
Art Gallery,Buffalo.Giftof SeymourH. Knox, contained drawing that reached out to mark exactly the uppermost corners. In the Unfurleds,
1964 Louis makes them even more important structurally than the bilateral symmetryof the drawing
below:MorrisLouis.Delta Upsilon.1960.Acrylicresin on canvas,9 that engages them "as if symmetry alone were not sufficient to provide the explicit structural
10 x 22'. Privatecollection logic which the paintings themselves . . . seem to demand." Whereas symmetry relates the
 66

drawn elements to the shape of the picture support onlyat one remove,"the corners are nothing
short of first-hand, immediate,physicalfeatures of the picture-supportitself."Withthe Unfurleds
Louis began explicitly to bond the drawn elements of his pictures to the shape of the picture
support, finding new expressive possibilities in the lucidity, indeed the obviousness of this
method. Its lucidity and obviousnessmake it reminiscent of Newman;so does the extent to
11 which the quality of the works it produced lies in their conception.
Manyof the proto-Unfurledshad been painted with pale, rather disembodiedcolors, as if in
an attempt to dematerialize the tangibility of their drawing, which looks right back to Louis's
Miro-influencedpictures of the late 1940s,and beyond to Surrealism itself in the biomorphic
12 connotationsprovidedby its swellingand contracting along its length. (Some of the elements in - <
these pictures resemble tadpoles.) In the crisper, more regularizeddrawingof the Unfurleds,the
MorrisLouis.Alpha Eta. 1960.Acrylicresin on canvas,8' 8U2"x
elements call less individual attention to themselves and allow, individually,less associative 17' 7".Privatecollection
readings. But since the Unfurledsare more intensely colored, the tangibility of their drawing is
necessarily more evident—at least, in Gamma Pi and other pictures of that first group of
Unfurledswhere contours are extremelyeven. This is exaggeratedwhen we see these pictures in
reproduction, where it is difficult to see either the very slight bleed at the outer edges of each
drawn element or the way that the paint (and the resin seeping beyond its edges) flattens the
nap of the canvas, placing it literally below the level of the unpainted canvas. Nevertheless,the
tangibility of the drawingin the first group of Unfurledsoften causes it to seem merely implanted
on the canvas and therefore potentially separable from it, and the pictures themselves to seem
somewhat bland and inert in the sheerness of their symmetry,frontality, and interlocking of
drawing and picture support. Gamma Pi only succeeds by the forcefulnessof its drawingand by
the equal spacing of its elements and the bare strips of canvas between them, an equality of
darks and lights which both opens and closes the pictorial space and imparts a lively optical
sparkle to each side of the mute interior.
In the more than thirty so-calledbroad-bandUnfurleds(pages 135-139)which followedthis
first small group,Louisobviatedthe tangibility of their drawingby both broadeningthe elements
and breaking the regularity of their contours, allowingthem to run, as rivulets, more naturally
and automaticallydownand across the canvas.As with the first group,they must have been made
by somehowpleating the canvas to form parallel troughs along which the paint could run. Here,
the troughs were obviouslyshallower,and presumablytapered toward the bottom of the canvas,
for the bands nearly always become narrower as they descend. The subsidiary streams that
divide from the main ones were presumably caused by the rush of descending paint partly
spilling out of the narrowingtroughs. Louisseemed able, to some extent, to control this effect by
the degree, abruptness, and place on the canvas of the tapering, and by the amount and viscosity
of the paint he put into each pour. He may well have also used a large swab to reach into the
canvas and guide the streams of color. But it was a trickier method than that used in the first
group;at times, one senses that it is not entirely under Louis'scontrol, at others, one knowsthat
it must have gotten out of hand. When it does work, however,the results can be breathtaking.
Huge rivers of color flow easily over the surface, flatten into the surface, and color as color (as
hue) is simplymanifested in a way Louis had never previouslyachieved.
The four bands at each side of Alpha Alpha (page 137) contain two colors unique to each
side and two shared with the opposite side. Tothe right, the two unique colors (green and red)
 67

are fromoppositesidesof the spectrumand are pairedbelowthe sharedcolors(blackand blue),

lb the left, the two uniquecolors(orangeand purple)are fromthe sameside of the spectrum
(both associablewith the red and dissociablefrom the green) and sandwichedbetweenthe
sharedcolors.It is a wonderfullyrich and evocativepicturefor all its starknessand simplicity.
AlphaBeta (page139)uses onlytwocolors:two identicalyellowssurroundinga greenon each
side.Here,veryexceptionally, the innermostbandsdescendfromthe top ofthe canvas.Butsince
their yellowsare tonallycloseto the colorof the canvas,the eyetends to lockontothe greens
belowthemwhosetop edgesdescendfromjust a fractionbelowthe corners;and the innermost
yellowsfloatweightlessly, seeminglybalancedand suspendednot fromthe top but from some
MorrisLouis.
AlphaEpsilon.1960.
Acrylicresinoncanvas,8' 10"x point midwaydownthe surfacewhere the bands comeclosesttogether.Colorseems utterly
19'4".TheMuseum ofContemporaryArt,LosAngeles.
GiftofRobert nonphysical, purelyvisual,in this extremelylimpidcomposition.
A.Rowan, 1982 These,however,are amongthe veryfinest of the broad-bandUnfurleds,whichvary enor
mouslyin qualityand containonlya fewfullyrealizedpictures.Theproblem,onceagain,was in
their drawing.In the previousgroup,eachelementseemeddrawn,but the limitsofeachelement
did not.Now,eachelementseemsthe productof naturalforces,and thereforenot drawn,but the
limitsof each element,beingmorenoticeablethan before,do seemdrawn.Stainingaloneis not
enoughto offset their extremelygraphic,stencil-likeappearance.This becomesparticularly
bothersometowardthe bottomof thosepictureswherethe streamsofpaint splitintobranchlike
configurations or enclosesmallpocketsof bare canvas,callingattentionto themselvesand to the
fussyoptical flickersthey create. In such instances,color loses its vividnessas hue and is
transformedto becomepart of a pattern of tonalcontrasts.However, whenLouisbroadenedthe
bandsof colorthroughout —therebyaccentuatingcoloras hue by makingit morevisible—the
picturestendedto becomestiffand inert.
It maywellhavebeenat this momentthat Louisbrieflyreturnedto a compositional variant
that he had used in the proto-Unfurleds: arrangingthe twosets of diagonalpoursso as to form
onesinglediagonaldirectionwitha blankverticalstrip ofcanvasbetweenthem.Theseso-called
Japanesebannersbringthe broaderpart of each elementto the middleofthe picture,and in so
doingmakecoloras hue literallymorecentralto their reading.But these,too, seemsomewhat
overcalculated, as wellas undulydependenton the presenceconferredby sheer size.(Thebest
of this groupapproachtwentyfeet in length.)The sameis true of the broad-bandUnfurledson
an over-sizeformat,whichLouisprobablymadearoundthe sametime.
It was at this point that Louiswas facedwith a uniquedilemma.He had finallyfounda
formatthat allowedcolorto speakdirectlyas hue in natural,automatically generatedconfigura
tions.Andyet, to the extentthat he emphasizedcolor,his picturestendedto becomestatic.But
if he appliedthe paint with greater freedom,to offsetthis effect,tonal contrastsreasserted
themselvesto such an extent as to hinder the visibilityof the color.Additionally,morefreely
appliedpaint tended to be read onlyas fallingdownand into the pictures,therebylosingthe
possibilityof creatingthat oppositemovementwhichmore evenlycontouredelementscould
provide.But more evenlycontouredelementsare read as drawn,tangiblethings;they also
sacrificedetail,whichcreates a static effect,albeit one in whichcoloris more noticeable.In
effect,Louishad to choosebetweengivingeither coloror drawingfull sway.If he chosecolor,it
had to be at the expenseof drawing;it meant usinga formof drawingthat calledvery little
attention to itself. If he chose drawing,it had to be at the expenseof color;it meant that
 68

individual colors, their harmonies and contrasts, would receive less attention. He opted for
drawing.However,the way in which he did also made color a more visuallyactive part of his art
than ever before.
In the so-called narrow-bandUnfurleds (pages 141-145),each rivulet remains more-or-less
constant in width as it descends the canvas, in this respect resemblingthose in the first group of
Unfurleds.The width of each rivulet, however,is closer to that of the narrower,lowerparts of the
rivulets in the second group,and the kind of optical flicker produced in the lower parts of those
pictures is produced by each bank of rivulets as a whole, which now contains not four or five
rivulets but thirteen or fourteen. Louis accepted—indeed, capitalized on—the tonal contrasts
produced by closely positioned, extremely graphically drawn bands of color interspersed by
crevices of bare canvas approximatelythe same widths as the bands themselves.In many cases,
he accentuated them by using tonally contrasted colors within each bank of rivulets. And
whereas in the broad-bandUnfurledseach pour of paint changes in configurationindividuallyas
MorrisLouis.GammaMu. 1960.Acrylicresin on canvas,8' 6" x
it descends the canvas, in the narrow-band Unfurledsthe whole group of thirteen or fourteen 13' 1014".
StedelijkMuseum,Amsterdam,1970
pours in each bank change configurationas a whole, dipping momentarilyfrom the diagonal to
the vertical, then resuming their diagonal movementat, usually,a slightlyshallower angle until
they meet the bottom edge of the picture, where each bank of colors occupies approximatelyone
third of its width at each side. The effect is of two fluctuating multicolored zones silhouetted
against the blank white center, which is mobilizedby the drawingof the color that surrounds it,
seeminglywarping and billowingby the pressure applied along its perimeters.
One of the most remarkable aspects of these huge paintings—they average eight and a half
by fourteen and a half feet—is the finesse with which Louis organized the multiple and
meandering rivulets, never fully fusing them lest they appear a block or shape of color nor
keeping them so far apart lest they speak as single and uncoordinatedvoices.Theyare orchestral
in their effects. About a dozen of the approximatelyforty pictures in the group do contain
rivulets that touch or overlap to varying degrees. These waterfall Unfurleds are phenomenally
dramatic, but when the colors meet—especially when spectrally adjacent colors meet—they
seem almost to describe adjacent sides of volumes, thereby forming individual clusters that
disrupt the continuity of the banks of rivulets in which they occur.A sense of volumeis suggested
by the warp of the rivulets in the more typical pictures; however,it is suggested by each bank of
rivulets as a whole.And while each rivulet is quite individualin its drawing,it is sufficientlylike
its neighbors to read in a modular way.Louisenforced such a reading by repeating colors within
each bank, often calling attention to the repeat of the innermost color by sandwichingit between
two darker or spectrally opposed hues. When he did place spectrally adjacent colors together it
was to use their similarityto providethe effect of a rising or descendingscale; and then he would
abruptly end that movement with a tonally opposite or a complementary color, or with a
sequence of such colors, at times only to reintroduce the scale (possibly in a reverse move
ment)—always preventing a single directional reading either in or out of the picture. It was
important that the colors in each bank seem nonhierarchical in their arrangement, as if
uncomposed, and that their structure be a "self-cancelling"structure "nowhere evident, or
nowhere self-declaring."Otherwise,the holistic bonding of each bank would be compromised.
At the same time, Louis had to prevent each bank from seeming monotonouslycomposed.
opposite:PaulCezanne.ForestScene,c. 1900.Watercolor
and pencil,
Two,or sometimes three, colors in each bank were therefore usually allowedto jump visuallyby 17%x 1214". Privatecollection,Lausanne
 69

sharplycontrastingthem, either tonallyor spectrally,with their neighbors.Byand large,Louis

usedthe samecolor—oftenyellow,becauseit wasclosestto the colorofthe canvas—to provide
thesebreaks.Theirpacingwasimportant,and Louisusuallydispersedthemso that oneoccurred
closeto the insideof the picture,wherethe colorsoutsideof it couldbe countedon to pull the
eye over the break. In any case, they could not be overdonelest too manytonal contrasts
overpowerthe forceof the color.Yellows couldnot be allowedto dominatepicturesfor the same
reason,and yellowbecameespeciallyproblematicwhen Louisused it for an innermostband
sinceit tends to disappearvisually,failingto cut out the blankcenterwith sufficientclarityon
the sidewhereit appears,producinga somewhatlopsidedpicture.WhenLouisdid use yellowin
this way,he usuallyopposedit with a dark innermostband on the oppositeside so as to force
each bank of colorsspatiallyapart, increasingthe illusionof warp in the bare canvasbetween
them. He was more successful,however,when he achievedthis effectby the use of opposed,
complementary hues for the innermostbands—as withthe blueand ocherofSigma (page145)
KennethNoland.MorningSpan. 1963.Acrylicresin on canvas, or the green and orangeofAlphaLambda (page141)—and he achievedit most dramatically
8' 7%"x 11'1(M'.Privatecollection whenhe opposedthe huesof the wholebanksof color,as withBetaKappa (page143),wherethe
reds and orangesof the left sideface the greensand bluesof the right,withonlytwogreenson
the left, tworeds on the right,and twoor three yellowson each side to holdthem together.
Becausethe whitecanvasofthesepicturesis dominant,and becauseit infiltratesthe banks
of color,it couldbe madeto unifyoftenverycomplexrelationshipsof color.Thecolor,that is to
say,couldbe as variousas possible,and benefitedfrombeingso. Louisincreasinglyused earth
and natural colors (like ochers, umbers,and leafy greens) amongthe prismaticones. This
broughtnew weightand authorityto his pictures.The earth and natural colorsbroadenthe
affectiverangeof these worksand add an evocationof the outsideworldto the moreartificial
prismaticyellows,reds, and orangesespecially.Blackappears occasionally;only white was
intrinsicallyunusable,for it wouldhaveunderminedthe whiteof the canvasas color,makingit
seemdull and shadowy. Thewhiteof the canvasfunctionsbetweenthe other colorsmuchas it
did in Matisse'sFauvepictures (and Cezanne'slate, watercolor-influenced canvasesbefore
them), as a breathing,unifyingcontinuum.But the way that color is used across its whole

13
•
/
uI
' l\ 4

'i
\'f
i
'jr emotivescaleis morereminiscentof Matisse'sworkafter 1914,includingthat of his Niceperiod.
WhenLouisuncoveredcolorfromthe Veils,he attemptedto matchthe moredecorativeaspects
of Matisse.But to followthe decorativeMatissein a purelyabstract formatis to risk simply
glorifyingcolor—somethingpossiblyironic;certainlyredundant. Instead,in the narrow-band
Unfurleds,Louisfound his way back to those aspects of Matissewhere colorwas far more
/ 1• obviouslya meansthan an end. Fauvism,Matissealwaysinsisted,was morethan merelybright
; >. • color."That is only the surface;what characterizedFauvismwas that we rejected imitative
colors,and that with pure colorswe obtainedstrongerreactions—morestrikingsimultaneous
kVl
14

tIt'
U
T
hj<i
reactions;and there was alsothe luminosityof our colors." Louis,in effect,foundhis wayback
to those aspectsof Matissethat link his art mostcloselyto Impressionism,
coloris the aim of representationand the unifyingagent of picture-making.
wherelight before
In the broad-band
Unfurleds(as in Matisse's"decorative"pictures),lighthad beenproducedbycontrastedareas of
r color;now(as in Matisse'sFauveand Nicepictures)colorwassubmittedto lightitself.Orrather,
*f
the narrow-bandUnfurledscombine,in their effect,the simplicityand scale of the decorative
Matissewith the opticalvibrationand luminosityof the Impressionist-influenced Matisse.
 70

Verylike the decorativework of Matisseis the bold tripartite divisionand expanded,

unimpededfeelingthese pictures possess.The eye slides across their centers with literally
nothingto pin it down,then acrossthe contoursthat marktheir sidesin the sameMatisseanway
that the contoursof the Veilsmark their interiors.Whereasthe center is large, open, and
monochromatic, the sides are smaller,divided,and multicolored.Each is reminiscentof the
FauveMatisse,whosaid, "I was able to composemypaintingsby drawingin such a waythat I
united arabesqueand color,"achieving"expressionthroughdrawing,contour,lines and their
15 directions." As in Matisse'sFauvepictures,the colorarabesquesretain the graphicbite, the
opticalvibrancy,and the rhythmicalmovementof drawing.Theyalso retain drawing'sinnate
capacityto suggestvolumein their directionalinflections—but a kindofvolume(as in Matisse)
fromwhichthe connectingtonal tissue has been removed.I referredearlier to howPollock's
alloverdrip picturesisolatedand abstractedthe componentsof traditionalmodeling —shadow,
color,and highlights —in their black,colored,and aluminumskeins,and recombinedthem in
such a way as to dissipatethe sculpturalfrom illusionism.The narrow-bandUnfurledsdo
somethingsimilar,exceptshadowand colorcombine:the colorsstand for shadows,lightsare
colorless,and color is submittedto the disembodying intensityof light. Shadow,as such, is
ironicallyabsent in these huge,magnifiedblocksof hatchedshading.Andin its absence(once
again,as with the FauveMatisse),we are giventhe coloredskeletonof a painting,a loosely
articulatedskeletonheld togetheronlyby the whitelightof the canvassurface,which,showing
betweenthe colors—and energizedbythem—seemsto pulsateand breathein pacewith their
rhythmsand havealmosta dazzlingeffectof its own.
The intense and vibrantluminosityin each of the two side zonesis counterposedby the
blank screen of the center,and the coherenceof the three zonesis securedby their common
flatnessand frontalityand by the bilateralsymmetryof the format,lockedto the framingedges
of the support.Andyet, it wouldbe wrongto supposethat these elementsof cohesionmerely
stabilizethe activityof the parts and therebyjoin them.As I said earlier,the Unfurledsare not
holisticallybondedpictures;they are centrifugalnot centripetalin their impliedmovement.
Hence,whilewe knowthat the rivuletsdo invadethe picturesfromthe side edges,they also
appearto push out the picturesto the edges.The edgesdo bind each picturetogetherbut they
do not containit or encloseit or boundit or even(if the picture'sproportionsare correct)frame
it. If the pictureis either verylongor verysquarein shape,not onlydoesits compositionseem
either attenuatedor cramped,its sideedgescan seemarbitrarilycut—as if eachbankofrivulets
was a judiciouslyframedsegmentof a largerwhole.But in the largemajorityof cases,the side
edgesare neitherso distantfromeachotherthat the colorbankscan be seenentirelyseparately
nor so near that theycan be seen quitesimultaneously. Asa result,the side edgesstaycuriously
unobtrusive;not concealed,merelywithdrawnand uncompressing in effect,resistingcontinual
focus.Louisstretchedout the edgesnot to someindeterminatepointof visualconcealmentbut
to the precisepointof visualunity.
Thethree zonesof eachpictureare physically joinedbythe innermostrivuletswhichdefine
the center but emphaticallybelongto the sides;the center is thereforeneithera positiveshape
nor exactlya negativeground.Whatwe see is not a simplefigure-ground reversal.A largepart of
the forceof each picture is attributableto the fluidity,not stability,of relationshipamongthe
three zones.Thecolorrivuletscompressthe center area at its base,then expandand releaseit
 71

at the top.Theyalsopulldownthe top,likeguylinessecuringa load,exertingdifferentpressures

accordingto howtaut the rivuletsare at eachside.Thestraighterand densertheyare, the faster
their trajectory,and the moresharplyand stronglytheypull downthe top edgeat their side.At
times—becausethe diagonalsseemto rise as wellas fall—the readingis reversed,and the top
edgeis apparentlybraced,and then forcedupwardby the pressure.But howeverwe read the
directionofthe pressure,it is sometimesso unequalon eachside(as inBetaKappa)as to cause
the top edgeevento shiftvisuallynear the center,producingan apparentbreakin its continuity
as oureyesrefocusfromleft to right (somethinglikethe effectof Cezanne'smisalignedfar edges
of tables).Whenthis happens—evenwhenthis seemsaboutto happen—the banksof rivulets
shift visuallytoo so that one side seemsactuallyloweras well as lighterthan the other.The
relativeintensityof coloron each side alsocontributesto, and complicates,this effect,as does
the waythat the drawingof the rivuletscausesthe central space to billow,whiletheir own
billowingis counteredby its tautness.

THEMOST ASTONISHING, mostradicalfeatureof the Unfurledsis the sheer emptinessof their

centers.Mostwritingon this subject,onecritichas complained,"seemsslightlydefensive,as if it
must be proventhat there is 'really'somethingthere . . . that there must be something'in' a
16 painting"for it to be a paintingat all. The point is well taken. Nevertheless,to say that the
Unfurledsare radicalpicturesbecausetheir centersare perfectlyemptyis an oversimplification,
forwhilethe centersare indeedemptythey are neverthelesspictorial.In this regard,there are
somegeneralprecedentsfor what Louisachieved.Theedge-linkedelementsof certain Impres
sionistpicturescometo mind.Pierre Bonnard'sinsistencethat a picturebe composedarounda
holeor emptysection—and his radicalmethodof workingon canvasestackedto the walland
subsequentlycropped—producedpicturescontrolledby the edgesand shapedfromoutside.(It
is possiblethat Bonnard'sThePalm in The PhillipsCollectionmay have directlyinfluenced
Louis.)Butwhat suchprecedentsfinallydemonstrateis just howmuchmoreextremeis Louis's
method.
Andyet,the result is not unprecedented,onlyits degree.Theconfrontational aspectof the
Unfurleds,producedby their flatness,frontality,and bilateralsymmetry,recallsNewman.How
ever,we are not onlyfaced by a LouisUnfurledbut tend to read it fromleft to right and back
again.Aswe do so,the emptycenter affordsan extraordinarily dramaticbreakbetweenthe two
sides,a kindofvisualaposiopesisthat allowsreflectionon whatwe haveseen and addsurgency
to what follows.But,despiteits physicalsize,the break is so slightin our actual perceptionof
the picturethat whileit is true we cannotfocuson each side simultaneously we nevertheless
discoverthe wholepicturealmostinstantaneously. Thedelayin total comprehension is so slight,
17 it has been suggested,that Louis'sprocedureis closeto Impressionistsimultaneity.Andyet, it
is a delay—so the simultaneity,or instantaneity,appearsin our veryperceptionof the picture,
and is renewedeach time we lookat it. Thisis not quite the effectof Impressionistpictures,
wherethe instantaneousis depicted,andwherethe depictionrefers,necessarily, to a temporary
moment,to a momentthat has passed.The instantaneityof the Unfurledsis here and now,not
there and then. Ofcourse,Impressionistpicturesmakethe past presentto us whenwe see them,
bringinginto the present the instantaneitythey depict. But the delaythus alluded to only
accentuatestheir temporality.Withthe Unfurleds —paradoxicalthoughthis may seem—the
 72

instantaneousis releasedfrom its momentto becomepermanent,and permanentlypresent.

ElwynLynn,the perceptivewriteron Louiswhonoticedthe closenessof his procedureto
Impressionistsimultaneity, alsoobservedhowcolorin the Unfurleds"hasan organicgrowthand
presencethat suggestssomethingakin to an Impressionistnotionof the painting'sidentifying
itself with the vibratorynature of the atmosphere."Andhe added,"TheUnfurledsare about
symbolic,organicfunctions,of a homogeneous impliedor concealedgrowththat pervadesthe
8 wholesurface,whichis the pigment-stained canvas.'"This,in fact, is to join an Impressionist
associationto a Symbolistone,and the Unfurledsdo indeedcombinethe Impressionistmodelof
a workof art as a vibratingcontinuum,like nature,with the Symbolistmodel(refinedfrom
Romanticism)of a work of art as havinga life of its own, independentof its maker and
corresponding to, rather than imitating,the organicself-sufficiency
of nature.Onemightevengo
further than this and noticehowthe veryformof the Unfurledssurroundswith Impressionist
vibrationsthe quintessential^Symbolistblanknessand whitenessof the interior.TheUnfurleds
are virtuallydiagrammatic of StephaneMallarme's famousconceptionthat "the intellectualcore
ofthe poemconcealsitself,is present—is active—in the blankspacethat separatesthe stanzas
and in the whiteof the paper:a pregnantsilence,no less wonderfulto composethan the lines
9 themselves.'"
It was MichaelFriedwhofirst drewattentionto the Symbolistconnectionsof Louis'sart,
notinghowSymbolistideas concerningthe "elocutionarydisappearance"of the artist and the
artist'saimas seekingto reveal"certainspiritualilluminations" usefullyinformour understand
ingofthe "impersonality" ofLouis'spicturesand the "absolute"experiencetheyevoke,lb this he
addedthat a Symbolistvisionof art informs"the non-temporal, and as it were instantaneous,
20 presentness"of Louis'swork. In statingmyagreementwiththis, I shouldmakeclear (as Fried
does)that no actual,directinfluenceof Symbolist doctrineor art on Louis'sworkis impliedbyit.
Nevertheless,the extent of Symbolistinfluenceon our modernconceptionof the nature and
21 functionof a workof art (as FrankKermode,notably,has explained)is veryconsiderable. In
Louis'scase, there is in fact a mediatinginfluencethat links his art to Symbolism,namely
Matisse,of whomit may be said (followingwhat SidneyTillimsaid of Pollock)that he was
responsiblefor all the nobilitythat Symbolistpaintingever knewsincehe gaveits "idea"scale
and set the stagefor a heroicspiritualismin painting.Louis'ssymbolism is basedmainlyon this
Matisseanmodel.
Sincethe aim of Symbolistart was to "objectifythe subjective(the exteriorizationof the
22 idea)," the objective,autonomousexistenceof the workof art was stressed—not for its own
sakebut so that art, freedfromthe unnecessarydetailsof nature,couldmorereadilysymbolize
the artist's idea of nature'sorder.The Unfurledsare less obviouslypicturesthat alludeto the
naturalworldthan the Floralsor Veils.By1960-61whentheywerepainted,avant-gardeart as a
wholehad shiftedawayfromsuchallusions.Andyet,the naturalworldis presentedas the theme
of these pictures:not onlyin the organicflowof their drawingand in the growthor "becoming"
that pervadesthem but alsoin their whitenessitself.
Main-streamSymbolistpainting—whether by OdilonRedonor EdvardMunchor Paul
Gauguinor GustaveMoreau—in emphasizingthe exteriorizationof idea,tendedto conceiveof
the mediumof paintingin the communications senseof that wordas an agencythroughwhich
the ideawastransmitted.Symbolistpoetry,however,conceivedof it morein the biologicalsense
 73

of a substancewithinwhichsomethingis grown,a culture.In any case, poetryis intrinsically

closerto idea than paintingis, a poembeingless of a thingthan anyother workof art, so the
23 actual objectificationor materializationof idea is less of an issuethan it is for painters. The
best Symbolistpaintersdid approachthe conceptionof the poetsin locatingtheir idea as much
in the handlingof their pictures as in their illustratedsubjects,but they felt compelledto
maintaina senseof disjunctionbetweenthe ideaand its materialembodimentlest theyfall into
meredecoration.As RobertGoldwaterpointedout,this maybe mostnoticeablyobservedin the
differentfunctionsallocatedto line drawingin Gauguinor Munch,say,as comparedto Art
24 Nouveau. It was left to Matisse(takingcluesin this respectfromthe late workof Cezanne)to
realizethat ideacouldbe moreintrinsicallybondedto its materialembodimentif it werelocated
not onlyin the illustratedsubjectand not onlyin the handlingbut in the actualpictorialsupport.
For Louis,just as for the late Cezanneand for Matisse,the blank whitenessof the support
becomesthe mediumof a picture'sexistence,an almostlivingtissue that is at once the final
arbiterof pictorialcoherenceand the embodimentof the idea of naturethe picturepresents—
an uninterrupted,nonobjective continuumof light.
Lightis to the Symbolistpainterwhatsilenceis to the Symbolist poet—wherethe intellec
tual core of his art is to be found.As such, it is necessarilyan idealized,disembodiedlight
situatedin an unbeatablespace,neverfullydefinedin its relationshipto the objectsor shapes
that appearin it, as Cubistspace,say,is alwaysso defined.Anearlycriticof Louis'sart observed
25 that "whatLouiswasafter wasan idea of spacerather than an illusionof space." Thatthis was
not meant as a complimenttakes nothingawayfrom its acuteness.Light,certainly,in the
Unfurledsis that "verypure, non-materiallight" Matissealso sought,"not the physicalphe
26 nomenon,but the onlylightthat reallyexists,that in the artist'sbrain."
Thespecificlightreferredto abovebyMatisseis the harshwhitelightthat he sawwhenhe
27 visitedAmerica,and whichdominateshis late papercutouts. Louiswasworkingwiththe same
glaringAmericanlight.Matisse'slate cutoutscombine,in effect,the emphasison whitenessas a
coordinatingcontinuum,typical of his Fauvepictures,with the broader rhythmsand more
emphaticflatnessof his decorativeperiod.Louis'sUnfurledsoffera comparablesynthesis.But
whereasMatisse'scutoutsuse the harshnessof Americanlight to tauten their surfaces,Louis
followedthe earlierMatisse(ofboththe Fauveand decorativeperiods),and ultimatelyCezanne,
in maintaininga certainloosenessand pliabilityof surfacedespite,andwithin,its tautness,thus
allowinghis picturesto seemto breathe.In Matisse'slate work,Americanlightis transplantedto
Europeto emphasizeMediterraneanflatnessas neverbefore,to producea nobledecorativeart
that communicates a feelingofharmonyandwell-being. Louis'sworkhas that qualitytoo.Buthis
transplantationof Mediterraneanflatnessto Americahad, finally,a differenteffect;joined to
Americanluminism,it produceda new amalgam —one that is decorativeand evokesthe
breathing plenitude of nature but also one that has somethingof nature's more extreme,
primordial,and even vertiginousaspects.Louiswas never truly a field painter interestedin
28 creatingtotallyharmonicunities. Eventhe atmosphericVeilsinvolvecontendingforcesin their
dramaticcontrastof imageand ground.TheUnfurleds,however,cast offthe cytherealqualities
of the Veilsfor a more concentratedlychargedexpression,whichbillowsthroughtheir calm
centers.Butthe centersare calmin contrastto the activesides.Aswiththe oldSymbolistimage
of the vortex,stillnessand reflectionare discoveredat the veryheart of the vibratingworld.
 THERE WASapparentlyno breakat all betweenthe Unfurledsand the Stripes.Sometimeearlyin
1961,with exemplarydecisiveness,LouissimplystoppedmakingUnfurledswhiletheir method
was still a productiveone and immediatelyembarkedon a new series withoutany of those
hesitationsand falsestarts that separatedthe Veilsand Unfurleds.
Andyet,the formatof the Stripeswas not entirelynewto Louis'sart, forit returnedto that
of the 1960Columns.Havingfollowedthroughto its conclusionin the Unfurledsthe Still-
influenceddevelopmentof the transitionalpicturesof 1960,Louiswent back to pick up the
Newman-influenced development, just as he had gonebackin 1958to pickup fromwherehe had
left the 1954Veils.This,at least, seemsthe onlylogicalexplanationfor the speedat whichhe
consolidatedthe formatof the Stripes(pages147-175).However, the Stripesare not so distinct
fromthe Unfurledsas this mightimply.It is as if the kindsof coloradjustmentsto be foundon
one side of the Unfurledsweremadethe entire subjectof these pictures,and as if the senseof
coloras disposedon an enormouspagein the Unfurledsis concentratedin sucha waythat the
picturesactuallyanalogizea page.It is alsoas if the colorsthat are separated,and breathe,on
the white page of the Unfurleds,whoseinterposedcoolnessallaystheir heat, are compressed
into pillars that smoulderand glow;becomeyet hotter becauseof their velocity;and burn
channelsthroughthe ambientsurface,whosewhitenessis sometimeswarmedbytheir heat and
sometimesseemsicyin contrast.
Recognizingthat the Unfurledsrepresenta grandsynthesisof earlieraspectsof Louis'sart,
a numberof commentatorshaveviewedthe Stripesas evidencinga total changein mood,seeing
them as moredetachedin the sensibilitythey revealand thereforecomparableto subsequent
1960sstripedpaintings,Noland'sparticularly.In this comparison,theyhavebeen foundlacking,
havingneither the subtletyof harmonizedhue adjustmentsnor the senseof absolutecongruity
betweensurfaceand stripedimagethat characterizeNoland'spictures.This,however,is essen
tially a hindsightreadingand a mistakenone, for Louis'saimswere differentfrom Noland's.
Louis'sStripesmaintainhis interest in the contrastof imageand support;it is crucialto their
successthat the Stripesdo not totallyidentifythemselveswiththe surfaceand that theydo not
totallydependon subtlyharmonizedhue adjustments.
In each picture,the stripesas a unit do seemto be morelocalto the surfacethan in anyof
Louis'spreviouspictures.Thisis partlybecausethe geometryof their drawingbondsthem more
securelyto the shapeof the supportand partlybecausethe smallersizeof thesepicturesmakes
the weaveof the canvasmorevisibleas a unifyingfactor.Asa result,the colorseemsrightin the
weaveas neverquite beforeand the surfacethat muchmoreintact.At the sametime,however,
this veryintimacyof color-image and supportmeansthat it can be disruptedmoreeasily,that
nuancesof color,handling,and composition can disruptit. AndLouisconsistentlydoesdisruptit
in these ways.Thecolor-stained surfacemayremainintact as surface,but the colorchangesits
visualidentity.Far fromharmonizingthe individualstripesbycolor,Louisusuallyvibratesthem,
creatingan illusionof painterlinessin their opticalflickerthat is reminiscentof the effectof
colorat the sides of the Unfurleds.At times,as in ThirdElement(page153),they presentthe
illusionof an almostcorrugatedsurface,until the visibleweaveof the canvastautensit, pulling
out its creases,as it were.(In this respect,the effectis reminiscentof the internaldetailingin
the bronzeVeils.)Morefrequently,Louissimplybreaks up a harmonizedsequenceof close-
valued,usuallywarmhues by punctuatingthem with one or two stripesthat are darker,as in
 75

Number2-64 (page157),or are fromthe oppositeside of the spectrum,as in Equator (page

175),or,witha sequenceof suchpunctuations,evenat timesto suchan extentas to incorporate
the blankcanvasbetweentwoblocksof stripes,as in Biplane (page165),into an alloveroptical
flicker.
Coloris nowno longera part of painting,no longerservicesand pictorializesthe empty
canvas.The canvasno longeris space or atmosphere.The paintingsare almostall color,and
Louisfindsin coloritselfsucha plenitudeof experiencethat, virtuallyalone,it evokespictorial
spacewith hardlyany help fromother pictorialcomponents —in the juxtapositionof different
hues,values,intensities,temperatures,and so on.Andyet, the bondedcoherenceof the colors
cannot quite be explainedin terms of these juxtapositions.I said that the stripes are not
harmonizedby color.WhenLouisattemptedthat approach,the surfacetendedto dissolveor to
remaintoo decorativelyflat. In those pictureswhichtendedto the harmonic(especiallythose
withbroaderstripes,whosemorewidelyspacededgesdisruptfar less the harmonizingeffectof
the visiblecanvasweave),he thereforevaried the tactility of the stripes by using differing
amountsofturpentineand resinthinnersothat someare moreshinyand othersmorematte,and
someare moretransparentand othersmoreopaque.Thismaybe observedin Castorand Pollux
and in Albireo(pages159-161). The effectis to render each colorless localto the surface,to
wrestit awayfromthe surface,givingit an almostsculpturalidentity—certainlyan individual
identity.Thecoloredstripes,then, are not neutralmodulesthat combinehomogeneously to form
a multicoloredsheet or field,as in Noland'swork,but thingswith identities.Louis'schoicesof
color(of hue and of tonality)and his handlingof color(of its relativetactility)were designed
not onlyto visuallycombinethe stripesbut to preservetheir identitieswithinthat combination.
Thesameis true of his choicesofformator composition. Theverycoherenceofthe colorsis
not quite a matter of actual color relationships,but more a matter of the multiplicityof
29 individualcolors. In a sense,this returnsLouisto a visiblyadditive,block-building conception
of picturemaking.But these picturesare reallymorefasciatedthan fascicular:the stripesare
not merelybundledtogether,they are compressedtogetherand growtogether.Thisis attribut
able to the senseof velocitythey convey.In this respect,the Stripepicturesrecallthe looming
upwardmovementof the Veils,and maybe thoughtof as combiningthe formatof the Veilswith
the colorof the Unfurleds,not as a breakfromwhatLouishad previouslyachievedbut as a syn
thesis of it.
Almostcertainly,the earliestof the Stripeswerethe half-dozenor sowaterfalltype,suchas
Number11(page147),whichmaintain(evenexaggerate)the senseof self-generatedfiguration
of the Unfurleds,and the Veilsbeforethem.Thesecan be quite breathtakingin the streaming
blend of individualcolorsas they fall downthe canvas.Here, the wholeblended imageis
contrastedagainstthe whitecanvasin muchthe samewayas in the Veils.Thesculpturalouter
edgestighten the softnessand fluidityof the interior,holdingit to the surface,while simul
taneouslyenforcingits silhouettedseparationfromthe surface.In abouthalf of these pictures,
the stripescan be seen to separateinto narrowingflaresat the top.Thesewerecausedby trails
ofpaint runningdownthat part of the canvasfoldedoverontothe backof Louis'sstretcheras he
beganeachpouron the top edgeofthe stretcher.(Thehorizontalmarkofthe stretcherand even
marksleft by staplingthe canvasontoit can oftenbe seen runningthroughthe paintedarea at
this point.)The irregularityof these appearedto havebotheredLouis;and theyare bothersome
 76

in the waterfallStripesbecausetheir closenessto the Veilformatcalls for a more regularly

horizontaltop,just as in the Veils.In pictureslikeNumber11,therefore,he cut throughthe
paintedarea at the top as well as the bottomas part of finishingthe work.Thismoreactive
croppinghelpsto furtherdisembodythe colorof the paintedarea,whichnowcomprisespart of
the ground,not an imageset againstthe ground.It improvespicturesof this kind not onlyby
removingthe bothersomeflaresbut also becauseit checksthe extremenessof the directional
force within the painted area, whichotherwisetends to producetoo literal an image (of a
waterfall).Bycroppingthe canvasin this way,Louismaintaineda dynamicequilibriumof image
and surface.
OnceLouisdiscovereda wayto maintainthe separateidentitiesof the coloredstripesas
they descendedthe canvas,that sense of a literal imagewas allayed.Howhe painted these
pictureswith discretestripesis moredifficultto understandthan the methodshe employedin
previousworks.The horizontalline runningthroughthe paintedarea just belowthe top of a
number of them tells us that they too were painted tacked on a stretcher and that their
figurationwas thereforegravity-induced. Louismusthaveused his cheesecloth-covered swabto
helpdrawthe stripes,as wellas (probably)pleatingofsomekind.Nolandinfersthat he poureda
thin ribbonof syrupypaint downthe center of the intendedstripe,then spreadit to its desired
30 widthwitha knife. Butit is hard to tell howthe veryregularcontoursof the stripescouldhave
beenproducedin this way.(Possiblysomeformofmaskingwasused.)Moreover, closeinspection
revealsthat a numberof the stripes (especiallyin the 1961pictures)do taper slightly,which
suggeststhat a gravity-induced methodproducedtheir contoursas wellas their length.Noless
remarkableis the constancyof colorintensitythat Louismaintainedeven in the more trans
parent stripes.Suchtechnicalvirtuosity,thoughamazing,does not itself makethese pictures
better.Buttheyare better for it, if onlybecauseit makesthe stripesseemnot merelydrawnbut
simultaneously drawn(evenharder to understandtechnically)and not merelydrawnby hand
but impersonallyor automaticallydrawn,and thereforeas if they had sprunginto existence
instantaneously of their ownaccord.
In the nine or ten monthsin 1961that Louisworkedon the Stripes,he producedbetween
sixty-five and seventy-five pictures.At first,the pictureswerepainteddeadcenter on the canvas.
(Oneofthe earlyStripesis symmetricalin its colorcomposition too.)Picturesofthis kindhavea
quiet monumentality to them,and Louisusedthis qualityat times(as in the waterfallNumber
11)to softentheir activity.Butas he learnedto drawthe stripesmoreregularlyas wellas more
independently,he began to vary the symmetryof their placementin order to mobilizethat
regularity.In somecases,he paintedthe picturesoffcenter;in others,he paintedthem in the
center then afterwardfoundtheir shapein croppingthem asymmetrically. The care withwhich
he did this is not noticeablein these picturesbut can be discoveredin them.For example,the
wonderfully limpidpicturecalledBurningStain (page149)is energizedbyLouishavingcropped
it so that the mostvividcolorcontrast(ofthe complementary red and green)fallsexactlydown
the center.In Number9 (page151),the colorblockitselfbeginsat the verycenter,so that the
compacted,hot reds and orangesto the right of the center counterpoisethe open,uncolored,
bare canvasto the left. Moreover, the vividcomplementary coolgreenthat boundsthe hot color
blockto the rightof the center,insulatingthe bare canvasfromits heat, is repeatedto the right
ofthe evencoolerbluethat centersthe colorblock,therebycheckingthe rightwardmovementof
 the block—whichis checkedfurther by a repeat of the blue, until it slowsto a halt with an
intenseorange-red.Andthat orange-redon the far right is complementary to the greenon the
far left, at the center of the picture,to whichwe are thus returned.Manyof the Stripepictures
offerreadingsof comparablecomplexityand resultsof comparablelucidityto this one.
WhenGreenbergfirst sawthe Stripestowardthe end ofApril1961,he and Louisdiscussed
the questionof croppingand foundtheywere in agreementthat the pictureswerebetter when
Louisdid cropactivelyat the sides,reducingthe amountof bare canvasto focusand strengthen
31 the paintedsection. Louisincreasinglydid so;by1962,the canvasat eachside (moreoftenthan
not) constituteda marginsomewhatin the samewayas in the close-cropped Veils.However, no
matter howcloseLouiscameto the paintedsection,he almostinvariablykept the composition
asymmetrical. Mostof the double-stackStripepicturesof late 1961havemoregenerousmargins,
but these are emphaticallyasymmetrical. Withsomeof them Louisrepeatedthe narrowcanvas
gap betweenthe two stacksas one of the margins,therebyholdingthe stackstogetherto the
shapeofthe support.Someofthe 1962pictureswithbroaderstripesmakeoneofthe marginsthe
samewidthas one of the stripes.BothNumber2-64 and Castorand Pollux showthis (pages
157-159);the double-stack Number33 (page155),whichcontainsbothbroadand narrowstripes
makesone marginthe width of a broaderstripe and the internal canvasgap the width of a
narrowerone.Allof these strategiesalsoservethe purposeof askingus to read the canvasitself
as coloredin the samewaythat the stripesare. Thewonderfulpictureknownas Albireo(page
161)containsa preciselycenteredblockof broad stripeswith a blockof narrowstripes in its
rightmargin.Thatnarrowblockis the samewidthas the spacethat dividesit fromthe centered
block,and the marginto its right is the samewidthas one of its owncomponents.Repeatsof a
similaryellowat the left of each blockdisguisethe exactnessof these relationshipsbecausethe
yellowsblend somewhatwith the colorof the canvas.Theyalso serveto return to the left the
rightwardmovementof the picture.
Withthe usuallyverycloselycroppednarrow-stripepicturesof 1962(firstshownto Green
berg in late Marchof that year),a kindof symmetryis reestablished.Evenhere, however,Louis
usuallyleft one marginwiderthan the other,and againoften madethe narrowermarginabout
the widthof one stripe,as in Number19 (page163),and occasionally splitsthe stripesinto two
blockswith a one-stripewidthof bare canvasbetweenthem,as in Biplane (page165),causing
that thin "stripe"of bare canvasto mostdefinitelyread as colored.In onepictureonly,Number
1-99 (page167),Louisusesthree sets of stripes.Widelydispersedand beautifullyorchestratedin
color (usingrepeats, in three differentcombinations,of two reds, yellows,and greensat the
outeredgesof each set) to holdthemtogether,the three sets ofstripeslessdividethan openthe
surfacein a waythat is reminiscentof Monet'spaintingsof poplars.
Thispictureis unusualin twoother respects.First,it uses mostof the canvassurfacethat
Louishad attached to his stretcher.After the early 1961Stripes,as Louis'spicturesbecame
narrower,he took to paintingnot one but eventuallyas manyas four or fivepictureson one
canvas,then markedthe canvasfor croppinginto separatepictures.Oneresult of this was to
vastlyincreasehis output.Whereasin the nineor ten monthshe workedon the Stripesin 1961he
producedbetween65 and 75pictures,in the sixmonthshe workedon them in 1962he produced
between155and 165pictures,approximately 6 a week.Thesecondwayin whichNumber1-99 is
unusualis that the paintedarea is cut throughat both top and bottomof the picture.Whereas
 78

Louis and Greenberg agreed in 1961about the usefulness of active cropping at the sides of
pictures, they did not agree about the treatment of top and bottom. Louis felt that his pictures
were better when cropped along both of these edges. Greenberg felt that Louiswould do better
to leave a margin of canvas at the edge of the pictures where the stripes ended in plumes or
flares of paint. After Louis'sdeath, however,he came to the conclusionthat the artist's original
32 intentions were invariablycorrect. But Louistook Greenberg'sadvice;of the total of 230 Stripe
pictures from 1961and 1962,only 26 (or about ten percent) were cropped, or marked to be
cropped, according to Louis'soriginal intentions.
What are we to make of this? Wemust obviouslychoose between deciding that Louissimply
capitulated to Greenberg, trusting that Greenberg was correct even though he himself felt
otherwise, or deciding that Louis came to the conclusion that Greenberg was correct (even
though Greenberg himself eventually felt otherwise) and benefited from his advice in the
cropping of these pictures. I am convinced by the latter explanation; not only is it more
consistent with Louis'spersonality insofar as I understand it, the pictures themselves demon
strate it. Whereas the waterfall Stripes are better cropped top and bottom (for reasons already
explained), most of the others are not. It is true that some of the pictures with plumes or flares of
paint at the top wouldbenefit, like the waterfall Stripes, from havinga regularlydrawn top edge.
With others, however,this incident helps mobilize them pictorially and (especially in the very
close-valuedpictures) gives the whole image a welcome hint of tactility and body.And if Louis
had cropped off this incident, he would have been forced to alter the side margins of these
pictures in compensation, more often than not, to reduce them. Where he did reduce the side
margins of his pictures, the plumes of paint often become bothersome because now the image
can seem too tactile a thing within a close-boundcontainer. At the same time, to totally remove
them and drastically reduce the margins at the side can too closely identify the image and the
support, making the whole picture seem a kind of color-stripedtactile thing, a kind of sculpture.
Many of the very close-croppednarrow-stripe pictures suffer for precisely this reason. By
the time that he made these works, Louis had so perfected his technique of getting clearly
contoured stripes to exactly touch but not overlap down their full lengths (and was even able to
repaint a stripe exactly on top of a previousone) that he seemed infatuated by his ownvirtuosity.
As a group, these pictures vary more greatly in quality than any previous important group of
Louis'spictures. Very many of them are over controlled, over-stabilizedin their relationship of BarnettNewman.Onement,III. 1949.Oilon canvas,
image and support, whether their painted areas are cut through at both ends or just one. 71% x 33%".The Museumof ModernArt, New
What is important, then, is that the image formed by the stripes be kept in tension with the York.Giftof Mr.and Mrs.JosephSlifka
support as a whole, neither too independent of it nor too closelyidentified with it. Bythe end of
1961,Louis had found a method of achieving this which followed Greenberg's advice in not
cutting the image at both top and bottom but which eliminated the bothersome plumes. He
managed to terminate each stripe at the top with an inobtrusive rounded end. Thus regularized
(in a way that recalls the hillocklike effect of the tops of the later Veils),the block of stripes
assumes a tauter relationship with the shape of the support. The whole image (as with the Veils)
is a self-containedpainterly block,whosevibrating interior is opposed,and flattened, by the bare
canvas around it, but (unlike most of the Veils)an image that belongs by virtue of its drawing to
the shape of the canvas as a whole. The intimacy of image and support in these pictures (as well
as their crispness of drawing and high-keyed,often unexpected color) recalls Noland'swork of
 79

1961.However, it alsolooksbackto Louis'searlierpictures(includingthe ItalianVeils),whilethe

oppositedisjunctionof imageand supporttheysimultaneously conveyis certainlyLouis'sown.
The directionalemphasisof the Stripepicturesis crucialto their uniquerelationshipof
imageand support.I said that Louisfounda wayto terminatethe stripesby meansof rounded
ends.In fact, this waswhenhe beganthem.In Louis'sfirst exhibitionof Stripesin October1961,
he showedten pictures,all withnoticeableplumesor trails on their stripes.Greenberg,together
withAndreEmmerich(at whosegalleryLouishad begunshowing),suggestedthat Louisconsider
hangingthem with these plumesor trails at the bottom,partlybecausethey assumedthat the
33 pictureshad beenpaintedthat way. Louisagreedto sucha hangingforsomeofthem,and many
ofthe Stripepictureshavebeenexhibitedthus,whichdoesindeedcausetheir stripesto seemto
fall downthe canvas,endingin dripsof paint.Greenbergand Emmerichnowrealizethat Louis's
originalorientationforthesepictureswasthe correctone,and it has beenobservedthat hanging
them with the stripes descendingalters Louis'scarefullypaced coloradjustmentsby reversing
their horizontalreading.Thismaybe true. Andyet, in manyof the pictures,whileit alters them
it does not destroythem, for what is important(as I have argued)is the interactionof the
coloredstripesas individualthings,bothwitheachotherandwiththe bare canvasaroundthem,
and not their color relationshipsthemselves.(It does greater disserviceto reversea Noland
stripepicturethan a Louis.)Theinteractionis preservedevenif the colorrelationshipsare not.
Far more problematicalis the exaggeratedvelocityof the stripes created by a reverse
hanging.Exceptfor pictureswith broad blocksof stripes croppedfairlycloselyto their free
34 ends, the velocityof the stripes is such as to separatethem, as images,fromtheir support.
Hungcorrectly,their top edgesfloat,relaxingthe impetusof the stripes,whichseemto gain in
speedtowardthe bottomedgeuntil one noticesthe abruptnessof that edge,whichbrakesthem
to a halt. But,as withthe Veils,theyenforceno singledirectionin their viewing,seemingbothto
respondto and opposegravitysinglyand as a whole.Thisis especiallythe case withthe stripes
withroundedends.Andhere,it becomesclearthat theyare orientednot so muchto gravityas to
the uprightnessofthe canvasitself.Previously, Louishad enforcedthis uprightnesswiththe help
of gravity.It meant,however,that the bottomedgecarriedan immensepictorialweight.In the
Veils,narrowsheetsof colorwerebalancedon top of this edge.In the Unfurleds,banksof color
werebracedagainstits securefoundations.In the Stripes,however,it needsto carryfar less of a
burden.Theverticalstripesseemto siphonoffsomeof its collectedweight,likecapillarytubes
carryingup moisturefromtheir roots.
Weightthus relievedfrom the bottomedgesis dispersedinto the color,whichseemsas
tangibleas the pictureas a whole—no moreand no less tangiblewhenthe picturessucceed.
Theyseem weightless,disembodiedand transfixed,yet also coloredthings.But the blocksof
stripesthemselvesare no moreknownthingsthan are the veilimages.Sincethe canvasweaveis
so evidentand their color,therefore,all the morein the surface(and the surfacein them),and
MorrisLouis.Pillar ofFire. 1961.
Acrylicresinon canvas,7' sincethe drawingoftheir edgesdoesnot call attentionto itself,theydo not seemcircumscribed
5/8". 47 TheAbramsFamily Collection,
NewYork as thingsare, not even drawn.Theydo, however,seem intentional(just as the first groupof
Unfurledsdo) and in this sensetheydo seemif not actuallydrawnthen, as MichaelFriedput it,
productsof the intentionalityof drawing,of the willto draw,of the willto take possessionof a
35 planesurfacebydrawing. AsFriedobserved,their sheersimultaneous velocity,
whichprecludes
their beingread as the productof an act of drawing,reachessuch a pitch in the narrow-band

^ aa
 Stripesthat eachstripeamazingly appearsto havecontactwitheveryother.Wecan,and do,read
them horizontallyacrosstheir colors,therebydiscoveringindividualcolorrelationships,but we
haveto fighttheir velocityto do so. In the verticalreadingenforcedby their velocity,we grasp
their colorssimultaneously, as a sudden,intensesurgeor strobeof color,an experiencemore
associablewith light than with paint. The Unfurleds,I said earlier,followPollockin isolating,
abstracting,and then recombiningthe componentsof tonal modeling,exceptthat colorstands
forshadow,lightsare colorless,and coloris submittedto the disembodying intensityof lightand,
in itsjuxtapositions,createslight.In the Stripes,Louistakesthis a stepfurther.Hisvocabularyis
intensifiedto such an extent that the light of the canvasis nowin the color,and it is not the
componentsof tonalitybut of light itselfthat are decomposed, then realigned.It is as if Louis
rearrangesthe spectrumat will,and presentsus not with stripes of colorbut a multicolored
beamof light.
In 1962Louiscroppedfifteenof the narrow-bandStripepicturesso as to leavegenerous
areas of bare canvason all sides,and turnedthem intoa horizontalplane,causingthe stripesto
float,unanchoredby anythingexceptthe flatnessof the canvasitself.MichaelFriedsuggested
that the horizontalorientationmay have been Louis'sway of eliminatingthe sculptural,ob
36 jectlikequalitythat manyof the narrow-bandpicturespossess. It doeslightenthem.And,as
Friedobserved,thosewithtwostacksof stripes—likeHorizontalVIII(page169)—whichform
the vast majority,create the impression"that each stackof stripessuspendsthe other by a kind
of mutualattractionor repulsionrather than that both are suspended,as if by an outsideforce,
in the blankfield."However, whenthis effectdoesnot occur,the stripescan seemto float too
lazilywithinthe whiteground,whichtends to read as a fieldor evena space in a waythat it
never does in the fullyrealizedStripepictures.Louis,we remember,had very rarelyactually
suspendedanythingin an expanseof blankcanvas,and was neverwhollycomfortablewithsuch
37 an approach, whichwasreallymorePollock'sthan his own.HorizontalVIIIsucceedssowell,to
a largeextent,becausethe twostacksof stripesenforcethat ever-important senseof contending
forcesby beingnear enoughto each other to interact and by beingcroppedso carefullyas to
engageand mobilizethe canvasaroundthemas wellas betweenthem.(Thetwostackstogether
are exactlycenteredon the canvasbut the actualcenter is exactlyat the base of the top stack.)
HorizontalI (page171),withits singlestack,miraculously worksjust byfloatingextraordinarily
sumptuouscolor,supported(or elevated,rather) bydisembodied yellowsabovethe bottomedge,
whereit levitates.Thevelocityof the colorincreasestowardthe center,nowthat both ends of
the stripesare exposed,onlyto rushoutwardagain,and slowat the edges.Thisverylarge,nearly
ten-foot-long, pictureis probablythe closestthat Louiscameto achievingthe miragelikefloating
feelingof a Pollockwhileremainingindisputablyhis own.
Afterhis July5,1962,operationfor lungcancer,whichendedhis paintingcareerand led to
his deathsometwomonthslater,Louisarrangedto havethree canvasesthat he hadpaintedwith
38 floatingstripes stretched as squareswith the stripes runningdiagonallyacrossthem. Even
more than with the narrow-bandStripe pictures,the eye needs to fight the directionof the
stripes (becauseit is diagonal)to registertheir color,whiletheir diagonalitybracesand opens
the pictures in a way that is reminiscentof the Unfurleds.(Indeed, Louishoped that the
39 diagonalswouldprepare the wayfor the Unfurledsto be exhibited.) Andsince their colors,
whenregistered,offermorein termsoftheir hue,theyseemricher,moreopulent,moregenerous
 81

pictureseven,than the narrow-bandStripes.Theyevokenot a singlemulticoloredbeamof light

but parallelfrozenbeamsof coloredlight.It is coloredlightrather thanjust colorthat seemsto
shootacrossthe surfacesof these pellucidworksof art.
HotHalf (page173)containsa singleblockof stripes;the others,includingEquator (page
175),two blocks.In Equator especially,the exposedband of canvasthat exactlymeets the
40 cornersreadsmoredefinitelyas colorthan in anypreviousdouble-block Stripepicture. Indeed,
all of the exposedcanvasin all of these picturesreadsmoredefinitelyas colorthan everbefore,
and largelybecausethesepicturesseemcomposedas neverquitebefore.Theabsolutenessofthe
squarecanvas,dividedby the opposingdiagonals,forcesus to read them as composed.These,
Louis'slast paintings,are probablythe mostopenand certainlythe mostdynamicof the Stripes,
seemingmore the beginningof somethingthan the end—in their new explicitlyrelational
involvement with the shape of the supportand with securingthat shape by the forceof their
41 colorand drawing. But it is impossibleto talk as if colorand drawingare separateelements.
Theirforceis simultaneous.
In their ownway,these are as transcendentalin feelingas any of Louis'spictures.The
transcendentalwas once expressedthroughparticularizedimages,symbolizing mankind'sfree
domfromearthboundthings.Theseimageswere of elementsnot entirelycontrollableby man,
necessaryto his worldlyexistencebut unreachable,beyondhis grasp.Louis'sVeils,Unfurleds,
and verticalStripesalludeto these elements:to water,to air, and to fire, and to the light that
makesthem visibleto us. Hisfinalpicturesalludeto all of them,compressingand intensifying
their meaningsas they do so. But they mainlyalludeto light,and to light as somethingthat
possessesthose other elements;light as somethingthat is liquid,aerated,and burningin its
intensity;light that is actuallypalpableand not onlyilluminatesbut surgeswith illuminating
energy.Paintinghas alwaysconcerneditself with the unreal things in the worldthat giveit
visiblesubstance,intangiblethingslike color,shadow,and particularlylight.Its subjectis the
unrealand the attempt to realizeit, and its ultimatejustification(outsideof decoration)is the
tangibility,the reality,withwhichit doesso. Theselast picturesby Louisgiveto lighta kind of
plasticitypreviouslyunknownto paintingexceptthroughtonalmodeling,and a kindof intensity
that bleachesout anythingthat is shadowyor obscure.Theyare extraordinarilyoptimistic,as
wellas candid,pictures.Theyhad, of course,no successors.
 PLATES
INTHECAPTIONS, titles enclosedin brackets
were givento the paintingsafter the artist's death.
Allworksare acrylicresin (Magna)on canvas.
Dimensions are givenin feet and inches
and in centimeters,heightprecedingwidth.
Anasteriskat the end of a caption
indicatesthat the workwillbe shown
onlyin NewYork;
twoasterisksindicatethat the workwillnot
appearin NewYork.
 IRIS
1954
3A" 6' S x 8' 10"
205.1x 269.2cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.EugeneM. Schwartz
warn
 SALIENT
1954
4" 6' m x 8' sy
189.2x 252.1cm
CollectionDonaldand Barbara Zucker
*
 PENDULUM
1954
6' 7" x 8' 9"
200.7 x 266.7cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.HarryW Anderson
 90

LONGITUDE
1954
2" 8' U x 5' 6"
245.1 x 167.6cm
CollectionMarcellaLouisBrenner
**
 ATOMIC CREST
1954
3A" 9' 9%" x 6' 5
299.4 x 197.5cm
The Lannan Foundation
 INTRIGUE
1954
6' 8W x 8' m"
204.5x 268cm
Collection
Sylviaand Joe Slifka,NewYork
 [ BETHHEH]
1958
r 6" x 11'8"
228.6x 355.6cm
Collection
Mr.and Mrs.GrahamGund
 GOLDEN AGE
1958
7' 7" x 12' 5"
231.1x 378.5cm
UlsterMuseum,Belfast
 LOAM
1958
7' 6%" x 12' 4"
230.5 x 375.9cm
The Museumof Fine Arts, Houston.
Museumpurchase with funds
providedby The BrownFoundation
 [ BETHGIMEL]
1958
11' 1" x 7' 9"
337.8 x 236.2cm
CollectionRobertA. Rowan
 BOWER
1958
7' 1M" x 11' 5/4"
243 x 349cm
StaatlicheMuseenPreussischerKulturbesitz,
Nationalgalerie,Berlin
.i.
„v. JS
u;
SK^^5iri3BSB55iriH:
^5953i565fr!?isS^!f35555
106

[ BETHRASH]
1958-59
8' 2" x 11' 9"
248.9 x 358.1cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.James J. Lebron
tjeeecSK ••!• '
 [ BLUEVEILj
1958-59
8' 4/2" x 12' 5"
255.3 x 378.5cm
The FoggArt Museum,HarvardUniversity,
Cambridge,Mass.
Gift of Mrs.CulverOrswell
and Giftsfor SpecialUsesFund,1965
110

SARABAND
1959
8' 5Ks"x 12' 5"
256.9 x 378.5cm
The SolomonR. GuggenheimMuseum,NewYork
 [ BETHCHAF]
1959
11' 7" x 8' 6/2"
353.1x 260.4cm
CollectionMarcellaLouisBrenner
 [ NUMBER 1-89 ]
1959
8' 2" x 11'
248.9 x 335.5cm
Des MoinesArt Center,Des Moines.
Gift of GardnerCowles,by exchange,1972
 [MEM]
1959
8' 1" x 11' 8"
246.4 x 355.6cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.BagleyWright
 VERDICCHIO
1959
6' x 8' 7"
182.9 x 261.6cm
CollectionMrs.John D. Murchison
HWMWwmwwi 'w *riwi
 120

ITALIAN BRONZE
1959
6' 3" x 8' 4"
190.5x 254 cm
CollectionStephen Hahn,NewYork

%-t»j »« - . r« »> r-
 AIRDESIRED
1959
8' 9" x 6' 3"
266.7 x 190.5cm
Private collection
 [WHILESERIESII]
1959-60
8' x 11' 11"
243.8 x 363.2cm
CollectionSallyLilienthal
M-ii iH:i 5CH
 WHERE
1959-60
8' 3%" x 11' KM'
252.4 x 362.1cm
HirshhornMuseumand SculptureGarden,
SmithsonianInstitution,
Washington,D.C.
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn
 [ BETH]
1959-60
4" 8' 9" x 8' 10/
266.7 x 269.9cm
PhiladelphiaMuseumof Art, Philadelphia.
AdeleHaas Thrnerand BeatricePastoriusThrnerFund
 POINTOFTRANQUILITY
1959-60
8' 5%" x 11' 2%"
257.5 x 342.9cm
HirshhornMuseumand SculptureGarden,
SmithsonianInstitution,
Washington,D.C.
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn
y •; • - - •
 132

[ALEPHSERIESV]
1960
3A" 8' 8 x 6' 10"
266.1x 208.3cm
CollectionHelen Frankenthaler

i
 [ GAMMA PI ]
1960
8' 8" x 11' 11"
264.2 x 363.2cm
Privatecollection
 [ALPHAALPHA]
1960
8' 9" x 12' 7"
266.7 x 383.5cm
CollectionWilliamS. Ehrlich
 [ALPHABETA]
1960
8' 6/2" x 13' 3"
260.4 x 403.9cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.I. M. Pei
 [ALPHALAMBDA]
1961
8' 6/2" x 15'
260.4 x 457.2cm
CollectionDr.and Mrs.CharlesHendrickson
 [BETAKAPPA]
1961
8' IVi" x 14' 5"
262.3 x 439.4cm
NationalGalleryof Art, Washington,D.C.
Gift of MarcellaLouisBrenner
 [SIGMA]
1961
8' 7" x 14' W
261.6 x 433.1cm
Private collection
 [ NUMBER 11j
1961
6x6'
182.9 x 182.9cm
Privatecollection
148

BURNING STAIN
1961
7' 3/2" x 6'
5.3 x 182.9cm
SheldonMemorialArt Gallery,
Universityof Nebraska,Lincoln.
NebraskaArt Association,
ThomasC. WoodsCollection
 [ NUMBER 9]
1961
7' 3" x 6'
221 x 182.9cm
CollectionLoisand Georgesde Menil
 THIRDELEMENT
1961
7' W x 4' 3"
217.2 x 129.5cm
The Museumof ModernArt, NewYork.
BlanchetteRockefellerFund
 [ NUMBER33 ]
1962
T 3/4" x 2' 10%"
221.6 x 88 cm
Privatecollection
 156

[ NUMBER 2-64 ]
1962
l/2" 6' 9 x 1' 9/2"
207 x 54.6cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.Arthur Rock
 [ CASTOR
ANDPOLLUX
]
1962
2" r 5y x 3'm"
227.3 x 119.7cm
The Eli and EdytheL. BroadCollection
 [ ALBIREO ]
1962
3/4" 6' 10" x 4' 4
208.3 x 134cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.MarshallCogan
 BBnam i

[ NUMBER 19]
1962
2" 6' 8V x 1' W
203.5 x 34.3cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.DavidMirvish
 [ BIPLANE]
1962
7/s" 7 x 1' 7
213.4 x 50.5cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.ThomasWeisel
166

[ NUMBER1-99 ]
1962
6' m" x 6' 3"
200 x 190.5cm
CollectionMarcellaLouisBrenner
 168

[ HORIZONTAL VIIIJ
1962
3A" 2' 1 x 7' 1M"
65.4 x 242.6cm
Privatecollection
 BBS

I
 [ HORIZONTAL I]
1962
2' 8" x 9' 7"
81.3 x 292.1cm
CollectionMr.and Mrs.MarshallCogan
warn
172

HOTHALF
1962
5' 3/s" x 5' 3/8"
160.3x 160.3cm
Privatecollection
iWiWiriiiiiii
174

EQUATOR
1962
5' 3" x 5' 3/4"
160 x 160.7cm
Privatecollection
!
R:
 177

CHRONOLOGY 1912
November28: Morris Louis Bernstein born in
Baltimore, Maryland.
1948
Included in Maryland Artists 16thAnnual Ex
hibition, at The Baltimore Museumof Art.
1918-27 Began using only Magna,an acrylic resin paint
made by Bocour.
Attended Baltimore public schools.
1927-32 1950
Served on Artists' Committeeof The Baltimore
Attended Maryland Institute of Fine and Ap
Museumof Art.
plied Arts.
1951
1933
Commutedto Baltimore to teach small private
Began sharing studio in Baltimore officebuild
painting class.
ing and supporting himself through various
odd jobs. 1952
1934 Artists' Equity representative during second
term on The Baltimore Museumof Art Artists'
Assisted in Works Progress Administration
Committee.
(WPA)mural for a public school in Baltimore.
1935 Movedto house in Washington,D.C.;converted
dining room into a studio.
Elected president of Baltimore Artists' Union.
Taughttwo painting classes per week at Wash
1936 ington WorkshopCenter of the Arts; became
Moved to New York. Participated in the Si- friends with fellow instructor Noland.
queiros workshop.Became friendly with paint 1953
manufacturer Leonard Bocour.
Taught painting at Howard Universityas well
1937 as at WashingtonWorkshopCenter, and con
tinued teaching private students in Baltimore
March:Exhibited two paintings at ACAGallery,
and Washington.
New York.
April 3-5: Louis and Noland spent weekend in
1938
New York. Noland introduced him to Green-
Changed name legally to Morris Louis. berg. VisitedFrankenthaler and saw her paint
ing Mountains and Sea, after which he de
1939-40
stroyed most of his paintings of this year.
Exhibited one painting at WPAPavilionof New
April 12-30: First one-man exhibition at Work
YorkWorld'sFair: Broken Bridge.
shop Art Center Gallery,Washington,D.C.Ex
February 27, 1939-August27, 1940:Employed hibited: Firewritten I, Firewritten II, Fire-
by Easel Divisionof WPAFederal Art Project. written III, Firewritten IV, Firewritten V,
Snow Flowering Image, Falling Upward, Set-
1943
Free, The Distance of Time, Vertical-Vertigo,
Returned to Baltimore. Relied on his familyfor Within-Without, Man Reaching for a Star,
financial support. I'm in Love, The Tranquilities I, The Tran
quilities II, The Tranquilities III, selected
1947
drawings.
July 4: Married Marcella Siegel. Movedto two-
1954
room apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland;
converted bedroom into a studio. January 11-30: Included in Emerging Talent,
 178

at Samuel M. Kootz Gallery, New York. Ex Summer:Concludedsecond Veilseries. 1961

hibited: Silver Discs, Trellis,Foggy Bottom.
Included in Summer Gallery Exhibition at January-February: Concluded Unfurled series
June 1: By this date had painted sixteen Veil French & Company. Exhibited: Intrigue, and began to paint Stripe pictures.
pictures (first series). Bower, Turning.
March 17— April 22: One-man exhibition, Mor
June 6: Sent nine paintings, including seven 1960 ris Louis, at Galerie Neufville, Paris. Ex
Veils,to dealer Pierre Matissefor his consider Began to use more porous canvas, allowing hibited: QuoNumine Laeso, Vernal.
ation. greater color penetration. October 3-21: One-man exhibition, Morris
Returned to making more conventional Ab March 23— April 16: One-man exhibition,Mor Louis, at Andre Emmerich Gallery,New York.
stract Expressionist paintings. ris Louis, at French & Company,New York. Exhibited: WaterShot, Earth Gamut, Pillar of
1955 Exhibited: Loom, Addition, Seal, Bisection, Risk, Pungent Distances, Color Barrier , Pil
Matrix, Winged Hue, Point of Tranquility, lar of Fire, VaporousPillar, Sky Gamut, Split
April 2-3: Greenbergvisited Louis in Washing Where, Monsoon, Flood, Taper and Spread, Symmetry, Notes of Recession.
ton; encouraged him to come to New York Air Desired, While,Doubt, Drop, Joust, Sara
more often. October-November: Included in New New
band, Impending, Floral, Air Born, Quo York Scene, at Marlborough Fine Art Ltd.,
October 5-24: One-man exhibition at Work Numine Laeso. London. Exhibited: Libation, Moss, Colon
shop Art Center Gallery,Washington,D.C.Ex Spring: One-man exhibition, Morris Louis, at nade, Spawn.
hibited: Figures, Yellow,CloseBlack, TeaRose Institute of Contemporary Art, London. Ex October 13, 1961-January 1, 1962:Included in
Garden, Hot Eyes, Magnolia, Brittle Air, Slick, hibited: Intrigue, Libation, Air Desired, Quo American Abstract Expressionists and Imag-
The Round Black. Numine Laeso, Winged Hire {WingedHue), ists at The SolomonR. GuggenheimMuseum,
1957 Drop. NewYork.Exhibited:Burning Stain.
May 6-25: Included in New Workat Leo Cas- April:Began using new formula of Magnapaint Included in Societyfor Contemporary Art Ex
telli Gallery, New York. Exhibited: Untitled of a more fluid consistency. hibition at The Art Institute of Chicago. Ex
(5-76), Untitled (5-75), Untitled 1956. May: Greenberg's article "Louis and Noland," hibited: Pungent Distances.
November 5-23: One-man exhibition, Morris appeared in Art International. 1962
Louis, at Martha Jackson Gallery, New York. May3-13: Included in NewAmerican Painting
Exhibited: 1954 {Salient), February 1956, at Galerie Neufville,Paris. Exhibited:Iris, Air April 21-October 21: Included in Art Since
March 1956, 1956 {Untitled 1956), January Desired. 1950:U.SA. at Seattle World'sFair. Exhibited:
1957, January 1957, February 1957, March Pillar of Fire.
1957,April 1957,July 1957,August 1957 {No. Early summer: Began to paint Unfurleds. April 27-May 24: One-man exhibition,Morris
1), September 1957. Exhibited two paintings at Andre Emmerich Louis, at Galerie Schmela, Diisseldorf,West
Destroyed three hundred or more of his Gallery, New York:Picture with Red Stripe, Germany.Exhibited:QuoNumine Laeso,Sidle.
1955-57 paintings. Picture with Blue Stripe.
July 1: Cancer of the lung diagnosed.
1957/58 October 19-November15:One-manexhibition,
Summer:Correspondedwith Andre Emmerich
Morris Louis, at BenningtonCollege,Vermont.
Winter: Began second Veilseries. about his forthcoming exhibition and gave
Exhibited:Drop, Alpha, Delta, Gamma, Capri
James Lebron dimensionsfor stretching works
1959 corn, Green Painting {Salient).
to be included.
April 10-May 2: One-man exhibition, Morris November 23-December 2: One-man exhibi September 7: Died in Washington,D.C.
Louis, at French & Company,New York. Ex tion, Morris Louis, at Galleria dell'Ariete,
hibited: Iris, Intrigue, Spreading, Terrain of Milan. Exhibited:Autumnal, Vernal, Buskin, October 10-November10:One-manexhibition,
Joy, Longitudes (Longitude), Breaking Hue, Zenith, Hesperides, Ganymede, Masque, Morris Louis, at Andre Emmerich Gallery,
Pendulum, Libation, Atomic Crest, Colon Spawn. New York. Exhibited: No End, Equator , Hot
nade, Surge, Turning, Broad Turning, Green November 1960-February 1961: Included in Half, Prime, Infield, Purple Fill, Moving In,
Thought, Aurora, Plenitude, Moss, Lower From Space to Perception at Rome-New York Apex.
Spectrum, Green by Gold, Russet, Crown, Art Foundation,Rome.Exhibited: WingedHue,
Bower, "Stand So WeMust." Iris.
 179

APPENDIX WHENLOUISdied in 1962,he left behindap posureof the bronzeVeils,the first groupin
proximately650paintings,ofwhichall but 100 the 1958-59series, was surprisinglyslow to
or so remainedin his estate. Some600of the develop.Onlyeightoftheseapproximately
survivingpaintings date from the nine-year pictures had been shownin Louis'slifetime.
fifty
Exhibitionhistory;posthumousreputation;
periodthat constituteshis maturecareer. Therewere nonein the 1963memorialexhibi
croppingand orientation;methodsand
Fewerthan one hundredof the six hun tion at The SolomonR. Guggenheim Museum,
materials;conservation
1 dred were seen publiclyin Louis'slifetime. NewYork,or in any subsequentretrospective
Whatis more,the degree of exposureof dif until one was shownin the 1967retrospective
ferent types of pictures varied enormously. of fifty-fourpicturesorganizedby the Museum
2 Hence,of the 16 1954Veils,9 were exhibited of FineArts,Boston.Notuntilafter the Andre
(at French&Companyin 1959);ofthe 1955-57 EmmerichGallery's1969exhibition,Morris
pictures,probably15were exhibited(mostat Louis:Bronze Veils, did these importantpic
the MarthaJacksonGalleryin 1957);ofthe 125 tures becomebetter known.Even then, the
1958-59Veils,27wereexhibited(abouthalfat 1977 exhibitionof twenty pictures, Morris
French& Companyin 1959and 8 in Milanin Louis:TheVeilCycle, organizedby the Walker
1960); of the 118 transitional pictures of Art Center, Minneapolis,included only five
3 1959-60,19wereexhibited(at French& Com bronzeVeils.
panyin 1960);of the 98 Unfurleds,only2 were Louis'swisheswith regardto the 1955-57
exhibited(at BenningtonCollegein 1960);and picturesthat he repudiatedhavebeen gener
of the 230 Stripes, only 25 were exhibited allyrespected,andveryfewof themhavebeen
(mostat AndreEmmerichGalleryin 1961-62, shownsince his death. It has been claimed
includingthe exhibitionthat Louisprepared that the transitionalpicturesof 1959-60have
just beforehe died).It wasthereforeverydiffi not receivedthe attention they require, and
4 cult, duringLouis'slifetime,to get an accurate that someremainlargelyunknown.Whileit is
idea of what constitutedhis oeuvre, even if true that manyof the experimentalpicturesof
one saw all the exhibitionsup to 1962,whose this periodhave not been exposed,other pic
contents are itemizedin the Chronology, lb tures havebeenexhibitedregularly;sometwo-
put it anotherway,not onlyis Louis'sreputa thirds of them (74 out of 118)had been shown
tion largelya posthumousone,so is our under by 1985.Thiscontrastssharplywith onlynine
standingof his artistic identity. teen seenin Louis'slifetime.Largelythe result
As the foregoingstatisticsshow,a larger of the periodicrelease by Louis'sdealers of
proportionof Veil pictures were shown in hitherto unseen types of pictures (for exam
Louis'slifetimethan anyother kindof picture. ple, a 1967exhibitionat the AndreEmmerich
This has remainedgenerallytrue in exhibi Gallerywas devotedto Alephs),this has been
tions after Louis'sdeath. By1985,11of the 16 corroboratedby several museumretrospec
1954Veilsand 108of the 1251958-59Veilshad tives,a numberof whichhaveincludeda pro
beenexhibited.However, certainkindsofVeils portionallyhigh numberof such works(most
remain less known.The six 1954Veilsin the notably the 1974London exhibition,whose
exhibitionwhichthis publicationaccompanies thirty-nine pictures included fifteen transi
5 representthe largest groupof these pictures tionalworks). In 1970the WhitneyMuseumof
assembledsincenine wereshownat French& AmericanArt, NewYork,first exhibitedthe
Companyin 1959.Moreover, fiveof the six1954 Omegaseries. It is, of course, impossibleto
Veilsboughtby J. Patrick Lannanhad never knowwhat Louishimselfwouldhavethought
been seen publiclyuntil their removalthis of this, and the situationis complicatedbythe
year to The LannanFoundation'smuseumin existenceof seventeenof sixty-threecanvases
Lake Worth, Florida. Moreover,public ex that Louishad directedto be destroyedin 1962
 180

6 but that were not destroyed. These are all It should,finally,be observedin this con With the exceptionof the contemporaneous
from this transitionalperiod,and a few are text that Louis'spre-1954pictures have only titles Alpha and Delta, which suggestedthis
stylisticallycloseto transitional1959-60works been shown once in some depth since his approach,all such titles are posthumous.The
that he did exhibit in 1960.It is possibleto death:in the 1967Bostonretrospective. generic titles containingthe word "Pillar"
deduce from these repudiated works that A studyofthe exhibitionhistoryof Louis's were givenin Louis'slifetimeand, like two-
Louismaywellhavewantedto repudiateaddi picturesrevealsthat completeunderstanding word titles such as Burning Stain, identify
tionalpictures,nowin hisoeuvre,had he lived of all the series that constitute his oeuvre 1961Stripe paintings;most 1962Stripepaint
longer.Greenberghas stated that Louis in graduallyemergedonlyafter his death. Such ingstitled in Louis'slifetimehavesingle-word
tended to destroythose transitionalpictures evidenceas there is suggeststhat Louis'smain titles. However,paintingsnamed after stars
7 nowknownas the Saf and Ambiseries. How series of pictureswere workedon quite sepa (for example,Albireo) were titled posthu
ever,Louis'sdecisionto destroythe sixty-three rately.(The evidenceis less conclusiveabout mously.Thereis onlyonetitle in Louis'soeuvre
canvaseswas made the summer before his the transitional pictures of 1959-60;there that suggeststhe specificperiodof the work's
death,after his operationforcancer,andwhen some series may well have been workedon creation:AtomicCrestof 1954.However, a let
he was too weak to paint. Accordingto Mar- concurrently.)However, the separatetermswe ter fromJ. PatrickLannanto Louis,datedJuly
cella Louis Brenner,Louis constantlythrew use to describethemare not Louis's.Forexam 15,1958,describeshis purchaseof a work"in
awaypicturesthat did not satisfyhim,and also ple, the designation"Veils"was suggestedby verybrightcolorsthat crossthe paintinghori
8 periodicallypruned his oeuvre.This, she ob WilliamRubin.Andit has been quitecommon zontally. . . like a newmodernflagor banner
served,constituteda more extensivepruning for what are moreproperlyconsideredFlorals of an atomicregiment."The referencemaybe
11 than usual. to be describedas Veils,evenin the catalogues to another picture Lannanalso bought; that
TheUnfurleds,whichnowseemso quint of major exhibitions.However,it is unlikely otherpicturemaywellbeAtomicCrest.In any
essential to Louis'sachievement,offer the that Louishimselfwouldhavebeen bothered event,Lannan,not Louis,seemsto have sug
mosttellinglessonin termsof the posthumous by this. Allthe variousdesignationsfor transi gestedthis title.
understandingof what constituteshis oeuvre. tional 1959-60pictures(Aleph,Ambi,Omega, Manypaintings,especiallyStripes,bear
Sincerelativelyfew membersof the art com etc.) are posthumous.Louisdid obliquelysug numbersnot titles. Theseare estate numbers
munity can have seen the 1960Bennington gest the name "Unfurleds," when he wrote of and were given as the canvasesin Louis's
9 Collegeexhibitionat whichtwo were shown, AlphaandDeltaas "unfurling"pictures. How house were unrolled after his death. It is
10 these paintingsremainedvirtuallyunknown ever,he referred to the Stripesas "pillars." sometimesassumedthat paintingswith num
until after Louis'sdeath, when one was in That designation gradually became more bers closeto each other were paintedaround
cluded in the 1963Guggenheimexhibition. closelyattachedto those picturesnowusually the same time. However,accordingto Mrs.
(Mrs.Brenner has said that she was simply referred to as Columns;the designation Brenner, except for some of the smaller
12 unawareof their existence.)In 1964sevenUn Stripes is now so firmlyestablishedthat it Stripes,Louisrolledhis picturesseparately,
furledswerefirst showntogetherat the Andre wouldbe fruitlessto try to return to Louis's and musthaveperiodicallyreviewedgroupsof
EmmerichGallery.By 1985,some three-quar term. As mentionedin ChapterThree,Louis pictures,alteringthe orderin whichtheywere
ters of the extantworks(seventy-threeout of wasnot interestedin givingtitles to individual stored (or rolled).Louisusuallygavetitles or
ninety-eight)had been exhibited. works.However, witha fewexceptions(forex dates to his workswhenpreparingfor exhibi
Since the Stripes had been extensively ample,Castorand Pollux), all picturesother tions. Similar contemporaneoustitles (like
shownpriorto andjust after Louis'sdeath,the than Stripeswith unique (not generic)titles Verdicchio,Vernal;Pillar of Celebration,Pil
1963Guggenheimexhibitiondid not include were givenin Louis'slifetime,thoughnot usu lar ofDelay) mayusuallybe takento indicate
any.Thisturnedout to be a forecastof howthe allybyLouishimself,and mayusuallybe taken that the works in question were painted
Stripeswouldbe treated in most Louisretro as an indicationthat Louishimselfreleased around the same time, but it cannot be as
spectives(the 25 exhibitedin Louis'slifetime the workfromhis studio.AfterLouis'sdeath,it sumedthat theywerepaintedconsecutively.
jumped,by 1985,to 168or aroundthree-quar was decidedto title the hithertountitledVeils More problematicalare the dates that
ters of the 230 made).The fifteen Stripesin that remainedin the estate after the trans Louisinscribedon his canvasesbeforesending
the current exhibitionprobablycomprisethe literations of names of the letters of the them out for exhibitionsincethese sometimes
largest numberof these pictures ever shown Hebrew alphabet (Beth Heh) and the Un do not representthe dates the paintingswere
together. furledsafter the Greekalphabet(AlphaBeta). made.Asexplainedin the text, the exactchro-

HBBUUBUUHBhHHHHHHbHHBmnHHHHHHHI
 181

nologyof Louis'spaintingsis likelyto remain after the Floralsnot beforethem. (It should havebeen onlytwo stretchers:one eight feet
obscure.The chronologyofferedin the text is also be noted that When, 1960,unlocatedin highand one nine feet high,accordingto the
hypotheticaland differsin somerespectsfrom the catalogueraisonne,is in a NewYorkpri size of canvas Louisused, and both around
that in the catalogueraisonne.Amongspecific vate collectionand is a picture similar to twelvefeet long,for Mrs.Brenneris sure that
problemsof chronology not coveredin the text Spawn.) the stretcher filledall the availablespace on
are the following. AlthoughLouis'smethod of makinghis the window-free studiowall and that smaller
Regarding1953-54:Greenberghas said picturesis discussedat severalpoints in the picturesused onlypart of its length.
that he was shownapproximately thirty pic text, these additional observations, and The theorythat Louisconstructeda spe
tures in January1954whenhe visitedWashing guesses,are worth noting.Accordingto Mrs. cial stretcher with vertical braces is chal
ton and that mostcontainedfloralmotifsand Brenner,Louisplacedhis stretcheragainstthe lenged by Mrs. Brenner'smemoryof there
13 were too dependenton Pollock. The cata only window-freewall in the studio at the beingno stretcherwith any internaldivisions
logue raisonnelists only nine pictures from houseat 3833LegationSt. N.WIts maximum at all, onlythe four elementsthat formedits
this crucialperiodwhen Louisrespondedto dimensionwas about twelvefeet, if not less, rectangularshape.DianeUpright'sphotograph
the impactof Mountainsand Sea; the other and somepictures,therefore,musthavebeen of the backof oneVeil(DaletMem)indisputa
18 pictures were presumablydestroyed. Also painted in sections. The vertical divisions blyshowsthe imprintof a verticalstrut. This
problematicalis the identityof the nineworks withinthe triadicVeilshavebeenexplainedas wouldseemto contradictMrs.Brenner'smem
14 that Louissent to NewYorkin June 1954. the result of Louisfoldinghis canvasesto al ory.And yet, that imprint could conceivably
Regarding1958-59:It has beensuggested lowthis. However,DianeUprighthas convin have been producedby the lateral uprightof
that thoseVeilswithwhat lookslike the mark cinglydemonstratedthat these verticalmarks the stretcherif Louishad madesuch pictures
of a horizontalstretcherbar on their surfaces are the impressionsof woodenbraces against in sections, movingthe canvas horizontally
possiblyprecede the triadic Veils,and that whichthe canvasrested,and arguesthat Louis across the stretcher as he painted it. This
Louislearnedfromthe "mistake"that caused musthaveconstructeda specialstretcherwith would have required very careful measure
the horizontalmarkwhenhe constructedthe internalverticalbraces to producethese pic ment on Louis'spart, since the spacingof the
17 stretcherfor the triadicVeilsso as to produce tures. Shealsosuggeststhat Louismusthave internalverticalsin the approximately fiftytri
15 two clearer vertical marks. This, however, had differentstretchersfor differentseries.If adic Veilsis virtuallyidentical.But Louiswas
cannot be true. The horizontalmark appears so,the heightof the stretcherwas determined an extremelydexterousperson(his widowre
on Veilson the largerwidthcanvasthat Louis by the width of canvasLouisused at a par members),and it is known that he used
onlybeganusingafter mostof the triadicVeils ticular time and its lengthby the desireddi lengthsof string to check compositionalele
19 had been completed.Furthermore,it is by no mensionsof the worksin a particularseries mentsin his students'work. It is reasonable
means certain that the horizontalmark was (exceptfor the Unfurleds,whoselengthsusu to assumehe used them in his own.
producedby a stretcher bar. Especiallyprob ally exceedthat of any stretcher Louiscould However, there is an alternativeexplana
lematicalis the dating of the Italian Veils, have fit against his studiowall). This would tionforthe verticaldivisionswithinthe triadic
someofwhichare inscribedwiththe date 1960 meanthat the 1954Veils,the 1959ItalianVeils, Veils.It is interestingto note that Upright's
whilethe catalogueof their first exhibition,in the 1961Stripes,amongothers,were madeon photographsshowonly the imprint of a ver
1960,dates them 1959-60.I followDianeUp an approximately seven-by-nine-footstretcher, tical strut. If Louishad constructeda stretcher
right in believingthat they were painted in the 1958bronze Veils on an approximately withverticalstruts dividing,and thereforeat
1959and that Louisdated them beforereleas eight-by-twelve-foot stretcher,and the larger tached to, the externalrectangle,one would
16 ing them for exhibition. 1959Veils,and other paintings,on an approx expectto see the impressionnot onlyof the
Regarding1959-60:Theonlyguidefor es imatelynine-by-twelve-foot stretcher. verticalbut of the horizontalit abuts.Thefact
tablishinga reasonablechronologyhere is the Mrs. Brenner is certain that there was that one does not see this suggeststhat the
exhibitionrecordfor 1960.It is in this period onlyonestretcherat anytimein Louis'sstudio. verticalswereseparatefromthe stretcherand
that myaccountdiffersmostfromthat in the If it wasthe samestretcherfrom1954through carefullypositionedin frontof it, that the can
catalogueraisonne,especiallyin placingthe 1962(whichhas to be unlikely),the theoryof vas was looselytacked over them onto the
"While"and "Where"pictures closer to the different stretchers for different series is stretcher,and that Louisused these vertical
Veils,in associatingthe "WingedHue"pictures clearlywrong.In any event, it probablyre elementsas leversto controlthe flowof paint
with the Florals,and in placingthe Alephs quiresrevisionof that theory.Theremaywell downand acrossthe surface.Thisis, naturally,
 182

supposition. But it serves to explain two hith of the puddled paint at the base of the image. these elements removed. However,whether
erto mysterious features of some triadic Veils: There is only one work, Plenitude, where the Louis would have treated narrow-band Un
those with large areas of bare canvas at the base of the painted image is floated entirely furleds in the same way—or all pictures of
base of the dark vertical elements within the free of the bottom edge of the picture. This, each type similarly—cannot, of course, be
painted image and those where the dark ver however,was cut down after its first exhibi known.
tical element on the right stops below the top tion, and it is conceivable that the base line Many of the Stripes were left in the es
edge of the painted image. The former is diffi was changed. Cropping at the sides is where tate without indication of how they should be
cult to explain if one assumes that the vertical anomalies exist. Of the ten 1958Veils in the cropped at the top. According to Greenberg,
struts were part of the stretcher. If their tops 1959French & Companyexhibition, eight were Louis regularly left this decision to last since
21 were rested against the top horizontal edge of subsequentlyrecropped, bringing in their mar he felt it was the most crucial. As with the
the stretcher and their bottoms were pulled gins—mostlyat the sides but also, at times, at Unfurleds,the estate has followedthe conser
forward from the stretcher, with the canvas the top.Bower is one of the recropped pictures vative practice of using the maximum amount
draping around them, that would be the result. (it originally measured 8' 10" x 14' 10" and of canvas available although in the case of
lA"). The latter is impossible to explain if the ver now measures 7' IIV2" x 11' 5 The two some narrow-stripepictures the maximumcan
tical struts were part of the stretcher. But if pictures not recropped (presumably because seem to be too much. In the vast majority of
Louispulled down the one on the right so that already sold) were Russet and Turning. A nar cases, the sides were indicated by Louis's
its top lay against the wall below the top hori row Veil, Gamma, shown at Bennington in green crayon crop marks.
zontal of the stretcher (leaving the left ver 1960,was also subsequently recropped. It has Other questions concerning the cropping
tical to rest on the horizontal), that would be been the practice of the Louis estate to follow of the Stripes are discussed in the text. Tothe
the result. the approach of narrow cropping. remarks there concerning the orientation of
As noted above, some Veils have a hori Only two Unfurleds (Alpha and Delta) these pictures two points should be added.
zontal mark running across their surfaces. were stretched in Louis'slifetime. For the oth First, there is still some confusion regarding
This is almost certainly not the mark of a ers the practice of the Louisestate has been to Louis's preferred hanging of the horizontal
stretcher bar since it is too irregular and too establish the top edge by using the maximum Stripe pictures. Accordingto Andre Emmerich,
thin for that. SomeVeils(for example,Air De amount of canvas available there even if that Louis intended these pictures to be seen
sired) show a sequence of horizontal stria- has meant that the uppermost rivulets de either vertically or horizontally but preferred
tions. These may have been caused by Louis scend from beneath the corners rather than them horizontal. According to Greenberg,
22 applying the dark scrim with a cheesecloth- from on them, as in Delta. This conservative Louiswas undecided about their orientation.
covered swab, which abraded the surface in approach is unquestionably the correct one, Second,there have been questions raised as to
this way, or they may have been caused by but it cannot, of course, be knownwhat Louis's the orientation of the diagonal Stripe pictures,
Louis rolling his pictures immediately after would have been. The first Unfurled to be E. A. Carmean,Jr., havingsuggestedthat Louis
completingthem, then piling other pictures on stretched after the artist's death was done in may have considered hanging them with the
top of them, thereby flattening somewhat the such a way as to leave a maximum horizontal canvases as diamonds and the stripes horizon
23
20 unprotected rolls. However,the cause of the dimension too. However,this allowed scuff tal. Since the evidence for this is not con
single, bolder horizontal marks remains un marks, where the canvas had been folded clusive, it would be difficult to justify their
known. around the stretcher at the sides, to show on being hung other than as squares.
Since all of the 1954Veilswere released the front of the picture. Subsequentlyreleased The basic properties of Louis's paint,
in Louis'slifetime, they pose no problems with works were stretched slightly narrower so as Magna, are discussed in Chapter Two. More
regard to their cropping. In the case of later to remove these marks. One picture at least detailed information about Magna itself, and
24 Veils,however,there are some anomalies that (Alpha Lambda) is stretched so as to leave acrylic paints in general, is readily available.
deserve mention. Croppingat top and bottom visible the slight pooling of the paint in each However,informationabout the special conser
is rarely a problem. Louis's rule, with a few rivulet before it began its descent of the can vation problems associated with Louis'spaint
exceptions, seems to have been, at the top, to vas. It is uncertain whether there are more ings is extremely sparse, and some that is
use whatever amount of canvas (usually very like this. In any event, the vast majority of readily accessible is misleading.The following
little) was available above the painted image pictures are stretched so as to remove these notes offer some guidance on this subject.
and, at the bottom, to cut through the middle elements. Alpha and Delta are stretched with The advantage of Magnaover oil paint for
 183

staining is that it does not contain an acidic tensively in the 1954and 1958Veils.The 1959 plied color is necessarily affected. If it is ap
component to the degree that oil does, which Veils with brighter colors were painted with plied on top of a manufacturer's sizing (as it
will eventually deteriorate the fibers of un- somewhatless of it. By1960,when Louisbegan was in Louis's case), it can be applied very
primed canvas. Because it is oil-compatible,it using a more liquid form of Magnaand turned evenly indeed but still affect the degree of
can be thinned with turpentine as oil paint from area to linear pouring, thinning was nec penetration of the subsequently applied color.
can. It can also be extended with additional essarily required less often, and when Louis For unless the manufacturer's sizing is re
amounts of the acrylic resin vehicle used in its did thin the paint he tended to use more resin moved by washing the canvas, the new size
manufacture (AcryloidF-10),but it dries much than turpentine. The actual paint areas of the makes the original one resoluble, creating ir
more quickly than oil paint. Louis, we know, 1960-62 pictures are therefore sturdier than regular patterns. Their effect on color penetra
did thin his Magna,often very heavily indeed. those of the preceding ones. (Greenberg ob tion is visible in the 1954Veilsparticularly.
Diane Upright has estimated that in 1958 he served that Louis was forced to destroy forty These patterns, and the patterns of the
27 used about twenty-ninetimes as much thinner Unfurledsbecause their blues were not fast. brushstrokes that applied the size, can also
(both turpentine and resin) as paint, and that It is not known what Louis had done to cause become visible in the unpainted parts of the
a typical 1958Veil was produced from about this to happen, but excessive thinning was canvas as it ages. It has been suggested that
nine two-ouncetubes of paint and four and a again probably the culprit.) However,these the brown streaks that have appeared in the
25 half gallons of thinner. later pictures are the ones that often contain bare canvas areas of someVeilsand Florals are
The use of so much thinner has two po larger areas of unpainted canvas, which is the result of Louis having coated these areas
tentially injurious results. First, it is a health more fragile and less easily cleaned than any with acrylic resin in the mistaken assumption
hazard to use such large quantities of toxic painted area. that he was thereby protecting them, and that
substances in a confined space. Second, if the Louis apparently did not stop sizing his this can be identified by the unusual stiffness
thinner is turpentine rather than resin, it risks canvases with rabbit-skin glue until sometime of the unpainted canvas. This, however,is by
so diluting the resin in the paint itself that its either in 1958 or 1959. Hence, the 1954Veils no means certain. It is possible that the size
ability to bond the pigment particles and and some of the 1958-59Veilscontain sizing of that Louis applied—or the white paint he
create a firm and stable paint film is reduced. this kind in addition to the canvas manufac sometimes used in these areas—produces
Therefore,the higher the proportion of turpen turer's size (cornstarch). Traditionally, the these marks (and the stiffness of the canvas).
tine over resin that Louis used, the more frag point of sizing was to prepare for the applica Louis's use of sizing may have provided
ile are the painted surfaces of his pictures. tion of a primed ground that would isolate the him with one more method of articulating the
The matte surfaces caused by the use of tur paint surface from the canvas and inhibit the painted areas of the Veils,but in the unpainted
pentine abrade more easily than the relatively "sinking" of paint. Louis's first pictures in areas it was certainly problematical. It also
glossy surfaces caused by the use of resin. which he experimented with staining, like causes greater than usual fluctuations in the
They also tend to trap airborne particles of Trellis of 1953,are primed; of course, none of degree of tautness between painted and un
dirt, and are less easily cleaned, for whereas his stained pictures from 1954 onward are painted areas when fluctuations of tem
the glossy resin surface has a similar kind of primed. But the sizingitself inhibits, to varying perature and humidity occur. Louis, however,
resistance to that of a varnish, the matte sur degrees, the penetration of stained color into was unlikely to have realized this since he did
face is unprotected in this way.Of course, the the surface. According to Greenberg, Louis not stretch his paintings until they were sent
glossy surface produced by extending with used sizingto control the degree of absorbency for exhibition, often did not stretch them him
28 resin cannot be removed and replaced as a of his surfaces. According to Louis'swidow, self, and did not keep stretched paintings in
varnish can— and it is not knownwhether the he did not use it for every picture, but just as his house. When he abandoned sizing, it was
resin might eventually discolor somewhat, he needed it, and to the degree he needed it. certainly to achieve greater and more even
thereby altering the value of the colors—but it In the 1954Veils,its use—along with excessive color saturation, as can be seen by the pic
does produce a sturdier surface. The painted turpentine—prevents the even absorption of tures of 1960,by which time he had certainly
29 parts of all Louis's pictures are necessarily the medium by the fabric, thereby leaving stopped sizing any work. The same reasons
stiffer than the unpainted parts. (This can sedimented paint particles on the picture sur lie behind his turn from a heavier (No. 10)
create problems in stretching, for some of face. If sizing is unevenly applied in stained weight canvas to the lighter and more porous
30 them have to be pulled very tightly to flatten paintings, the degree of penetration, and (No.12)weight canvas that same year. But he
26 the painted parts.) Louis used turpentine ex therefore the intensity, of the subsequentlyap did not wash out the manufacturer's sizing:he
184

did not want the veryextremelevelof satura tremelyrisky,especiallyif the paint is under- ever,the mattedappearanceof the surfaceof
tion that wouldhavecreated. boundby resin.A numberof Louis'spaintings some washedpictures (whicheven at times
A numberofthe 1954Veilsshowwhitened havebeen washed.Amongthe risks,however, seemslike that of fiberglass)maypossiblybe
areas aroundthe veil imageitself that termi are that the paintedand unpaintedareasreact attributedto its use. Washingmay also draw
nate in loose brushstrokesjust short of the very differentlyto moisture.If the wholesur throughto the surfaceof a picture,by capil
tacking edges. These areas are almost cer face is wet,there is a verygreat dangerthat it lary action,an inscriptionon its verso.
tainly created with white paint and not with willwarpand changein shape.In thosepaint Evenmoredangerousthan washingwith
gesso,as is often assumed.In ChapterTwoI ings that have been washedthe painted and water is the use of bleach.It can exacerbate
referred to how the whitenessof the paint unpaintedareas havebeen treated separately. all the problemsassociatedwithwashing,has
accentuatesthe vividnessof the shape of the Someworks,of course,do not allowfor easy been knownto removesurface inscriptions,
veil and how its granularityassociatesitself separationof these two areas, and the paint and, since it is difficultto removebleachen
withthe grittysedimentwithinthe veil.Ib this areas of others are so clearlyunder-boundby tirely,it can darkenlater,leavingthe canvasin
shouldbe added,first, that its methodof ap resin as to render them water-soluble.The a worse conditionthan before.All this sug
plication—fadingout towardthe margins—is paint areas of certain Stripe pictureswhere gests, therefore, that only surface cleaning
yet anotherexampleof Louismakingreference the resincontentof the paint is veryhighhave withoutsolventsperformedby a qualifiedcon
to Pollock'scompositionalmethods;and sec been successfullycleanedin this way,but not servatoris safefor paintingslike Louis's.How
ond,that whenLouisbeganconsciouslyshap withoutthe risk of problemsin other parts of ever,it is wrongto assumethat any painting
ing the veil image in his 1958pictures, and these pictures.The generaldangerin this ap can ever be returned to the state it was in
movedto darker tonalitiestoo (partlyto em proach is that the picture must be removed when it left the artist's studio—even if one
phasize their shape), the whiteness of the from its stretcher and kept under tension knew what that state was. In the case of
paint was no longerneeded.(Louiscontinued whileit is beingcleaned.On numerousocca Louis'spaintings,attemptsat cleaningcan at
at times,however,to use a dullerwhitepaint sions, increase in dimensionsof the picture times make matters worse, causing even
in these areas.) Nor was its granularity has been the result of these washingproce greater abrasions(showingas lighter marks)
needed, since Louis additionallyeliminated dures. Additionally, washingis likelyto pro in the painted areas and smudgesin the un
granular detailing,relyinginstead on drawn duce one or moreof the followingdeleterious paintedones.
detailingto hold the eye to the surface of results.In the paintedarea,it can causeactual Clearly,the unpaintedareas are the most
these pictures.(Whengranulardetailingdoes pigmentloss,especiallyin turpentine-thinned vulnerableto damageand the mostdifficultto
appear in Veilsof 1958and 1959,it is almost pictures.Thismayshowin the formof a light clean.Airbornepollutantsthat are allowedto
certainlyaccidental.)In 1960Louisbrieflyre eningof the paintedarea, causinga pictureto rest withinthe fabriccan in time,underhigh-
turned to the use of white paint around the seem paler than it was previously,or in the humidity conditions,promote deterioration,
marginsof some pictures.Greenberghas ex form of increasedtonal variationwithin the thus weakeningand discoloringthe fabric.It
plainedthat the preparatorsat French&Com area. In pictureswith sedimentedpigmenton has been suggestedthat the soilingof the un-
panysuggestedusingit to coverup the finger the surface,it couldwellremovethe sediment, coatedcanvaswouldbe greatlyreducedor pre
markson the marginsof someof the pictures therebydrasticallydefacingthem. In the un ventedif the entire picturewas coatedwith a
he exhibitedthere that year,and that Louis paintedarea, it has been shownto producea transparentlacquer,the solventof whichdid
liked the effect and used it for a while for looseningand nappingof the canvas fibers not softenor dissolvethe acrylicresin.Leaving
aesthetic reasons. (It does not, in fact, suc (and thereforea fuzzy,out-of-focus look) be aside the aesthetic problem, the technical
cessfullycover finger-marksunless used so causeit removesthe cornstarchsize.Suchsize problemis that no solventsare totallysafe.
thicklyas to be bothersomein effect.) cannot be reintroducedevenlywithout diffi Allof this suggeststhat Louis'spaintings
Although Magna is an oil-compatible culty.Washedpictureshavebeen resizedwith are prone to soiling.However,certain basic
paint, it cannotbe cleanedwith the common a syntheticsize (Klucel)after their surfaces methodsof care and attention,easilyadopted,
solventsused for cleaningoil paintingssince havebeen spongedin such a wayas to make willkeep them in goodrepair.Theyshouldbe
they tend to softenor even dissolvethe resin their fiberslie in the samedirectionandthere shownwith a maximumilluminationof thirty
that holds the paint together.Beingoil-com forelookuniformin color.It has been claimed foot-candles,in stable conditionsof relative
patible,it is, in theory,able to be cleanedby that Klucelalso has the effect of returning humiditybetweenforty-fiveand fifty-fiveper
water. In practice, however,this can be ex depth of colorto fadedor abradedareas.How cent and of temperature between sixty-five
and seventy degrees, and in unpolluted condi spected for damage. Particular attention
tions. Intense light will both degrade the fab should be paid to weakening of the fabric
ric and cause colors to fade. Unstable condi along the tacking edge, to signs of rust around
tions of humidity and temperature will cause Louis'stack and staple marks, especiallyif they
constant alterations in the tension of the can appear on the surface of the picture, as they
vas. High humidity will encourage mold do in some Veilsand many Stripes, and to signs
growth, and pictures should not be hung on of dust accumulation. Periodic vacuuming of
damp or outside walls. As hot air rises, it will both front and back surfaces should be per
carry with it airborne dirt and pollutants; pic formed by a qualified conservator in order to
tures, and especially those with bare canvas, keep them dust free.
should never be hung close to the ceiling as Great care should be taken before keying
they will begin to discolor along the top edge. a picture and increasing its surface tension to
In addition, like all paintings, they should be compensate for changes in humidity.There is a
stretched on a broad, firm stretcher with suffi real danger of the canvas tearing if it is over-
cient cross members to keep them in plane keyed. Far better to wait for a few days to see
and eliminate racking. (A constant tension if the tension adjusts by itself.
stretcher is not recommendedunless very lim Many Color Field pictures have been
ited fluctuations of temperature and humidity glazed to protect them from accidental dam
can be absolutely guaranteed. Otherwise, too age. Although aesthetically not pleasing, this
much stress is placed on the fabric.) Their does of course afford very good protection.
edges should be protected by a frame of some Worksto be stored for extended periods can be
kind. And backing-board should be used to removed from their stretchers and rolled on a
prevent damage from careless handling of the drum (the larger the better) if their surfaces
back of the canvas and to form an air pocket, are not too fragile. Many larger paintings are
which minimizes oscillation when the picture now stretched on folding stretchers to facili
is moved. tate movingthem. If the folding operation is
Since the acidity in the wood of the undertaken by qualified handlers it is an ac
stretcher can cause discoloration of the adja ceptable solution to this problem. However,
cent canvas area in certain conditions (es pictures should never be stored thus folded for
peciallyif the picture is kept in an area that is lengthy periods.
too hot, too damp,or has poor ventilation), it is
recommended that the wood of the stretcher
be isolated from the canvas. This can be done
by painting the stretcher or by coating it with
a stable resin. Physicallyisolating the picture
itself by loose-liningis suggested as an addi
tional preservation procedure. (A polyester
fabric is strongly recommended.) This serves
the additional purpose of supporting the can
vas; it is noticeable that the bare canvas at the
tacking edges of especiallylarge pictures tends
to weaken and even tear, as the fabric weave is
pulled open there by the tension of stretching.
Loose-liningsupports the canvas without alter
ing its surface.
These paintings should be periodicallyin
 187

NOTES ALLREFERENCES are given in abbreviated

form; full citations may be found in the
Selected Bibliography.
39. Quoted in Upright 1985,pp. 60-61.
40. Greenberg 1978,p. 5.
41. Fried 1970,p. 10.
42. See Greenberg 1978,p. 5.

TOTHETEXT CHAPTERONE
1. Upright 1979,pp. 16-18.
43. E.g., Upright 1985,cats. X1-X17.
44. Quoted in Thiitt 1961,p. A20.
45. Jacobson 1970,pp. 9-10.
2. Quoted in Upright 1985,p. 10. 46. Greenberg 1978,p. 5; cf. Upright 1978,pp.
3. Upright 1979,cats. 215ff. 86-87.
4. Alloway1963,n.p. 47. Greenberg 1965,p. 66.
5. Quoted in Benson 1969,p. 37. 48. Rosenzweig1980,pp. 17-19.
6. Quoted in Ttuitt 1961,p. A10. 49. See Sandler 1978,pp. 52-57.
7. See Moffett 1977,pp. 20-22, and 50. Moffett 1977,p. 96, n. 54.
Waldman1977,pp. 9-17. 51. Greenberg 1955,pp. 208-229.
8. Quoted in Benson 1969,p. 37. 52. See Sandler 1978,p. 13.
9. Cf. Rose 1971—2,pp. 21-34. 53. See Sandler 1978,pp. 279-280, 254-287.
10.Greenberg
1964
— 2,p.91. 54. NewYork1957;Moffett 1979,pp. 30-31,
11.Greenberg
1952,
p.153. n. 24.
12.Greenberg
1948,
p.144. 55. See Robbins 1965,pp. 42-48.
13.SeeSandler
1978,
pp.2-11,
15-16.
14.Dzubas
1965,
p.51. CHAPTERTWO
15. Sandler 1978,p. 15.
16. Greenberg 1952,p. 146. 1. Eliot 1920,p. 49.
17. Quoted in Carmean 1976—3, Part 1, 2. Forge 1978,n.p.
p. 71. 3. Smith 1954,p. 250.
18. Greenberg 1960,p. 28. 4. Eliot 1920,p. 48.
19. Fried 1970,pp. 12-13. 5. Cf. Fried 1970,p. 13.
20. Quoted in Swanson 1977,p. 10. 6. Steinberg 1972,p. 72.
21. Quoted in TVuitt1961,p. A20. 7. Gouk 1970,p. 145.
22. IVuitt 1961,p. A20. 8. Greenberg 1955,p. 218.
23. Noland 1963,p. 10. 9. Cf. Elderfield 1983,p. 66.
24. Quoted in Moffett 1977,p. 22. 10. Fried 1970,pp. 16-18.
25. Waldman1977,p. 16. 11. Gouk 1970,p. 147.
26. Noland,quoted in Moffett 1977,p. 22. 12. Quoted in Moffett 1977,p. 39.
27. Noland,quoted in Moffett 1977,p. 40. 13. Greenberg 1963,p. 174.
28. Moffett 1977,p. 40. 14. Greenberg 1960,p. 28.
29. E.g., Upright 1985,cats. 67, 76. 15. Carmean 1976—3, Part 1, p. 71.
30. Fried 1970,p. 28. 16. Flam 1982,n.p.
31. Upright 1985,cats. 43-51. 17. Fried 1970,p. 23.
32. Moffett 1977,p. 25. 18. Greenberg 1966,p. 83.
33. Quoted in Upright 1985,p. 15. 19. Harrison 1969,p. 190.
34. Quoted in Upright 1985,pp. 60-61. 20. Greenberg 1965,p. 66.
35. Jacobson 1970,p. 9. 21. Cf. Upright 1985,p. 43.
36. Rosenblum1963,p. 24. 22. Lynn 1971,p. 30.
37. Upright 1985,cat. 53. 23. Cavell 1971,pp. 105ff.and 115ff.
38. Greenberg 1952,p. 146. 24. Greenberg 1963,p. 175.
 188

25. Quoted in Rubin 1975,p. 72. 39. Upright 1978,pp. 91-92. 39. See Upright 1985,p. 47.
26. Greenberg 1965,p. 66. 40. New York1960. 40. Millard 1977,p. 257.
27. Cf. Cavell 1971,p. 170. 41. Moffett 1979,p. 28. 41. Fried 1970,pp. 37, 48.
28. Greenberg 1963,p. 173. 42. Greenberg 1978,p. 5.
43. Cf. Moffett 1970,p. 45. APPENDIX
CHAPTERTHREE
CHAPTERFOUR 1. Alloway1963.
1. See New York1959. 2. Fried 1967.
2. Quoted in Sandler 1978,p. 299. 1. Cavell 1971,p. 22. 3. Swanson1977.
3. Cf. Greenberg 1962;Greenberg 1964— 1 2. Noland,quoted in Moffett 1977,p. 50. 4. Upright 1978,p. 84.
4. Fried 1970,p. 38. 3. Fried 1970,p. 38. 5. Elderfield 1974.
5. Rosenblum 1963,p. 24. 4. Bannard 1974,p. 20. 6. Upright 1985,cats. X1-X17.
6. Elderfield 1977,pp. 29-32. 5. Greenberg 1954,pp. 137-138. 7. Greenberg 1978,p. 5.
7. Gombrich 1971,p. 114. 6. Greenberg 1954,p. 134. 8. Upright 1985,p. 37.
8. Tillim 1967,p. 18. 7. Upright 1985,p. 56. 9. Upright 1985,p. 37.
9. Carmean 1976—3, Part 2, pp. 114-115. 8. Bennington 1960. 10. Upright 1985,p. 38.
10. Cf. Krauss 1971,n.p. 9. Fried 1970,p. 35. 11. Upright 1985,cat. 53.
11. See Upright 1985,p. 11. 10. Fried 1965,p. 30 (on Noland). 12. Cf. Upright 1985,p. 25.
12. Tillim 1967,p. 18. 11. Greenberg 1962,p. 370. 13. Fried 1970,p. 11.
13. Tillim 1967,p. 19. 12. Cf. Baker 1970,p. 39. 14. Upright 1985,cats. 53-57, 61, 63, 68.
14. See Upright 1977,p. 20; Upright 1985, 13. Tillim 1967,p. 19. 15. Upright 1977,p. 33, n. 27.
p. 16. 14. Quoted in Duthuit 1950,p. 43. 16. See Upright 1985,cat. 189.
15. Fried 1970,p. 24. 15. Quoted in Fourcade 1972,pp. 93, 132. 17. Upright 1977,pp. 24-25; Upright 1985,
16. Quoted in Carmean 1976— 3, Part 1, p. 7 16. Bannard 1974,p. 20. 28, 54-55.
17. Cf. Rose 1971—1,p. 63. 17. Lynn 1971,p. 30. 18. Upright 1985,p. 52, figs. 9, 54.
18. Fried 1970,p. 26. 18. Lynn 1971,p. 33. 19. Jacobson 1970,p. 8.
19. Cf. Frye 1971,pp. 206ff. 19. Cook 1956,p. 105. 20. Upright 1986,cat. 401, p. 42.
20. Quoted in Lipsey 1982,p. 143. 20. Fried 1970,pp. 40-41. 21. Greenberg 1965,p. 66.
21. Rosenblum 1976,p. 22. 21. Kermode 1961,pp. 107ff. 22. Upright 1985,pp. 43, 47.
22. Novak1969,p. 122. 22. Goldwater 1979,pp. 1, 18. 23. Carmean 1976— 1; Upright 1976.
23. Wilmerding1976,p. 40. 23. Arendt 1958,p. 170. 24. Rudenstine 1967—2; Upright 1985,p.
24. Cf. Cavell 1971,pp. 113-115. 24. Goldwater 1979,pp. 18-26. 259, bibl. 407-436.
25. Greenberg 1960,p. 28. 25. Ashton 1963,p. 7. 25. Upright 1985,p. 58, n. 8.
26. Moffett 1979,pp. 8-9. 26. Quoted in Fourcade 1972,p. 201. 26. Sitwell 1982,p. 102.
27. Fried 1970,pp. 25-26. 27. Fourcade 1977,pp. 54-55. 27. Moffett 1970,p. 46.
28. Fried 1970,p. 27. 28. Millard 1977,p. 257. 28. Greenberg 1963,p. 174.
29. Lipsey 1982,p. 142. 29. Fried 1970,p. 214, n. 18. 29. Greenberg 1960,p. 28.
30. Lynn 1971,p. 33. 30. Fried 1970,p. 36. 30. Upright 1985,p. 56.
31. Moffett 1979,p. 9. 31. Upright 1985,pp. 27, 39-42.
32. Greenberg 1966,p. 84. 32. See Fried 1970,p. 36; Upright 1985,p. 42.
33. Lipsey 1982,p. 142. 33. Upright 1985,pp. 44, 47.
34. Rosenblum1963,p. 24. 34. E.g., Upright 1985,cats. 458, 474.
35. Rosenblum1963,p. 24. 35. Fried 1970,pp. 35-36.
36. Fried 1970,p. 28. 36. Fried 1970,p. 37.
37. Milan 1960. 37. Cf. Fried 1970,p. 37.
38. Greenberg 1960,p. 28. 38. See Upright 1976,and Carmean 1976— 1.
 189

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICENTRIES are limited to

works referred to in the text, and are divided
into two groups: "Workson Louis"and "Other
Works."They are listed alphabetically by au
tember 1976); Parts 2, 3. Arts Magazine 51
(October 1976); Parts 4, 5. Arts Magazine 51
(November 1976); Part 6. Arts Magazine 51
(December 1976).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
thor or, in the case of some exhibition cata
logues, by city. The abbreviated reference pre
ceding each entry provides a key for the Notes
Elderfield 1974
John Elderfield. "Introduction." In Morris
Louis. London:Arts Council of Great Britain,
to the Text."Workson Louis"contains the most 1974.Reprinted (in German) in Morris Louis:
useful of the many publications on the artist; Gemalde1958bis 1962.Diisseldorf:Stadtische
for a more comprehensivelist of references on Kunsthalle, 1974.
Louis see Upright 1985. Elderfield 1977
John Elderfield. "Morris Louis and Twentieth-
WORKSON LOUIS Century Painting." Art International 21
(May-June 1977).
Alloway1963
Lawrence Alloway."Introduction." In Morris See also Other Works.
Louis: 1912-1962.New York:The Solomon R.
GuggenheimMuseum,1963. Fried 1967
Ashton 1963 Michael Fried. "Introduction." In Morris
Louis: 1912-1962. Boston: Museum of Fine
Dore Ashton. "Art."Art & Architecture 80 (No
vember 1963). Arts, 1967.Reprinted in Artforum 6 (February
1967).
Baker 1970
Fried 1970
Elizabeth C. Baker. "Morris Louis:Veiled Illu
Michael Fried. Morris Louis. NewYork:Harry
sions."Art News 69 (April 1970).
N. Abrams, Inc., 1970.
Bannard 1974
Walter Darby Bannard. "Morris Louis and the See also Other Works.
Restructured Picture." Studio International
187 (July-August 1974).
Greenberg 1960
Bennington 1960 Clement Greenberg. "Louis and Noland."Art
Bennington, Vermont. Bennington College. International 4 (May 1960). Reprinted in
Morris Louis. 1960.Exhibition checklist. Milan 1960.
Benson 1969 Greenberg 1963
LeGrace G. Benson. "The WashingtonScene." Clement Greenberg. "Introduction." In Three
Art International 13 (December 1969). New American Painters: Louis, Noland,
Olitski. Regina, Saskatchewan: Norman Mac
Carmean 1976— 1
kenzie Art Gallery, 1963. Reprinted in Cana
E. A. Carmean, Jr. 'A Possible Reversion in
dian Art 20 (May1963)and Fried 1967.
Morris Louis' Work."Arts Magazine 50 (April
1976). Greenberg 1965
Clement Greenberg. "Letter to the Editor."Art
Carmean 1976— 2
International 9 (May1965).Alsoin Fried 1967.
E. A. Carmean, Jr. "Introduction." In Morris
Louis: Major Themes and Variations. Wash Greenberg 1966
ington, D.C.:National Galleryof Art, 1976. Clement Greenberg. "Postscriptum,November
1966."In Fried 1967.
Carmean 1976— 3
E. A. Carmean, Jr. "Morris Louis and the Mod Greenberg 1978
ern TYadition."Part 1.Arts Magazine 51 (Sep Clement Greenberg. "Letter to the Editor."Art
190

in America 66 (March-April 1978). 1959.Exhibition catalogue. posing the Diagonal."Arts Magazine 50 (April
1976).
See also Other Works. New York1960
New York.French & Company.Morris Louis. Upright 1977
Harrison 1969 1960.Exhibition checklist. Diane Headley [Upright]. "Documentation:
Charles Harrison. "LondonCommentary."Stu The VeilPaintings."In Swanson1977.
Robbins 1965
dio International 177 (April 1969). Daniel Robbins. "MorrisLouis at the Juncture Upright 1978
Jacobson 1970 of TwoTraditions."Quadrum 18 (1965). Diane Headley [Upright]. "In Addition to the
Helen Jacobson. 'As I Remember Morris Veils."Art in America 66 (January-February
Rose 1971— 1
Louis."In Ten WashingtonArtists: 1950-1970. 1978).
Barbara Rose. "Quality in Louis."Artforum 10
Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Art Gallery, (October 1971).Correction in Artforum 10 (No Upright 1979
1970. vember 1971). Diane Headley [Upright]. The Drawings of
Krauss 1971 Rose 1971— 2 Morris Louis. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian
Rosalind Krauss. "Introduction." In Morris Barbara Rose. "Retrospective Notes on the Institution, 1979.
Louis. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland City Washington School." In The Vincent Melzac Upright 1985
Art Gallery,1971. Collection.Washington,D.C.:Corcoran Gallery Diane Upright. Morris Louis: The Complete
Lipsey 1982 of Art, 1971. Paintings. New York:Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
Roger Lipsey."Diptych: (1) Veiled Meaning in Rosenblum 1963 1985.Catalogueraisonne.
Morris Louis; (2) Form and Meaning in Crit Robert Rosenblum. "Morris Louis at the Gug
icism Ibday." Arts Magazine 57 (November genheim Museum."Art International 7 (De
1982). cember 1963). OTHERWORKS
Lynn 1971
Elwin Lynn. "Louis in Australia."Art Interna See also Other Works. Arendt 1958
tional 15 (November1971). Hannah Arendt. The Human Condition. Chi
Rudenstine 1967—1 cago and London:Universityof ChicagoPress,
Milan 1960 Angelica Rudenstine. "Chronology."In Fried 1958.
Milan.Galleria dell'Ariete.Morris Louis. 1960. 1967.
Exhibitioncatalogue. Cavell1971
Rudenstine 1967—2 Stanley Cavell. The World Viewed:Reflections
Millard 1977 Angelica Rudenstine. "Morris Louis' Medium." on the Ontology of Film. New York:Viking
Charles Millard. "Morris Louis." The Hudson In Fried 1967. Press, 1971.
Review (Summer 1977).
Sitwell 1982 Cook 1956
Moffett 1970 Christine Leback Sitwell. "Morris Louis Bradford Cook, trans. Mallarme: Selected
Kenworth Moffett. "Morris Louis: Omegasand 1912-1962:Vav,1960."In Completing the Pic Prose, Poems, Essays, and Letters. Baltimore:
Unfurleds."Artforum 8 (May1970). ture: Materials and Techniquesof Twenty-Six The Johns HopkinsPress, 1956.
Moffett 1979 Paintings in The Tate Gallery. London: The
Duthuit 1950
Kenworth Moffett. Morris Louis in the Mu Tate Gallery,1982. Georges Duthuit. The Fauvist Painters. New
seum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston:Museumof Swanson1977 York:Wittenborn,Schulz, 1950.
Fine Arts, 1979. Dean Swanson.Morris Louis: The VeilCycle.
Minneapolis:WalkerArt Center, 1977. Dzubas 1965
See also Other Works. Max Kozloff. "An Interview with Friedel
TVuitt1961 Dzubas."Artforum 4 (September 1965).
NewYork1957 James M. TVuitt. 'Art—Arid D.C. Harbors
New York. Martha Jackson Gallery. Morris Touted 'New' Painters." WashingtonPost (De Elderfield 1983
Louis. 1957.Exhibition catalogue. cember 21,1961). John Elderfield. The Modem Drawing. New
York:The Museumof ModernArt, 1983.
NewYork1959 Upright 1976
New York.French & Company.Morris Louis. Diane Headley [Upright]. "Morris Louis: Dis See also Workson Louis.
 191

Eliot 1920 Greenberg 1952 Novak1969

T. S. Eliot. "TVaditionand the Individual TalClement Greenberg. 'Partisan Review Art Barbara Novak.American Painting of the 19th
ent." In The Sacred Wood. New York and Chronicle,' 1952."In Art and Culture. Boston: Century. New York:Praeger, 1969.
London:Methuen, 1920.Reprinted 1980. Beacon Press, 1961.
Rosenblum 1976
Flam 1982 Greenberg 1954 Robert Rosenblum. "The Primal American
Jack D. Flam. John Walker.Washington,D.C.: Clement Greenberg. 'Abstract, Representa Scene."In KynastonMcShine,ed. TheNatural
The Phillips Collection,1982. tional, and so forth." In Art and Culture. Paradise: Painting in America 1800-1950.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. NewYork:The Museumof ModernArt, 1976.
Fried 1965
Michael Fried. Three American Painters. Greenberg 1955 See also Workson Louis.
Cambridge,Mass.: FoggArt Museum,Harvard Clement Greenberg. " American-Type' Paint
University,1965. ing." In Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1961. Rosenzweig1980
Phyllis Rosenzweig. The Fifties: Aspects of
See also Workson Louis. Greenberg 1962 Painting in New York. Washington, D.C.:
Clement Greenberg. 'After Abstract Expres Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980.
Forge 1978 sionism."In Henry Geldzahler.New YorkPaint
Rubin 1975
Andrew Forge. "Frankenthaler." In Helen ing and Sculpture: 1940-1970.NewYork:Dut- WilliamRubin.Anthony Caro. New York:The
Frankenthaler: A Selection of Small-Scale ton, 1969. Reprinted with revisions from Art Museumof ModernArt, 1975.
Paintings 1949-1977. Washington, D.C.: In International 6 (October 1962).
ternational CommunicationAgency,1978. Sandler 1978
Greenberg 1964— 1 Irving Sandler.TheNew YorkSchool. NewYork
Fourcade 1972 Clement Greenberg. "Post-Painterly Abstrac and London:Harper & Row,1978.
Dominique Fourcade, ed. Henri Matisse: tion," Art International 8 (Summer 1964).Re
Ecrits et propos sur I'art. Paris: Hermann, printed from Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Smith 1954
1972. Museum of Art. Post-Painterly Abstraction. DavidSmith. "SecondQuotes on Sculpture."In
1964. Barbara Rose, ed. Readings in American Art
Fourcade 1977 Since 1900:A Documentary Survey. NewYork
Dominique Fourcade. "Something Else." In Greenberg 1964—2 and Washington:Praeger, 1968.
Henri Matisse: Paper Cut-Outs. St. Louis and Clement Greenberg. "The Crisis of Abstract
Detroit: The St. Louis Art Museum and The Art." In Arts Yearbook7: New York:The Art Steinberg 1972
Detroit Institute of Arts, 1977. World (1964). Leo Steinberg. "Other Criteria."In Other Crite
ria: Confrontations with Twentieth-Century
Frye 1971 Art. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1972.
Northrop Frye.Anatomy of Criticism. Prince See also Workson Louis.
ton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1971. Tillim 1967
Kermode1961 Sidney Tillim. "Gothic Parallels: Watercolor
Goldwater1979
Frank Kermode. Romantic Image. London: and Luminism in American Art." Artforum 5
Robert Goldwater. Symbolism. New York: (January 1967).
Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.
Harper & Row,1979.
Moffett 1977 Waldman1977
Gombrich 1971
KenworthMoffett.Kenneth Noland. NewYork: DianeWaldman.Kenneth Noland: A Retrospec
E. H. Gombrich.Norm and Form: Studies in tive. New York:The Solomon R. Guggenheim
Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1977.
the Art of the Renaissance. London and New Museum, 1977.
York:Phaidon, 1971.
See also Workson Louis. Wilmerding1976
Gouk 1970 John Wilmerding."Fire and Ice in American
Alan Gouk. "AnEssay on Painting."Studio In Art: Polarities from Luminismto Abstract Ex
Noland 1963
ternational 180 (October 1970). Kenneth Noland. "Kenneth Noland at Emma pressionism." In Kynaston McShine, ed. The
Greenberg 1948 Lake, 1963." In Ibn Washington Artists: Natural Paradise: Painting in America
Clement Greenberg. "The New Sculpture." In 1950-1970.Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Art 1800-1950.New York:The Museumof Modern
Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. Gallery,1963. Art, 1976.
 TRUSTEESOF THEMUSEUM
OF MODERNART

WilliamS. Paley,Chairman Emeritus

Mrs. John D. Rockefeller3rd, Chairman of the Board
Mrs. Henry Ives Cobb,ViceChairman
DavidRockefeller,ViceChairman
Donald B. Marron,President
Mrs. Frank Y.Larkin, VicePresident
John Parkinson III, VicePresident and Treasurer

LilyAuchincloss Mrs. G. MaccullochMiller*

Edward Larrabee Barnes J. Irwin Miller*
Celeste G. Bartos S. I. Newhouse,Jr.
Sid Richardson Bass Stavros S. Niarchos
H.R.H.Prinz Franz von Bayern** Richard E. Oldenburg
Gordon Bunshaft Peter G. Peterson
Shirley C. Burden GiffordPhillips
Thomas S. Carroll* Mme Jacqueline Picasso**
John B. Carter John Rewald**
Frank T. Cary DavidRockefeller,Jr.
Anne Cox Chambers Richard E. Salomon
Gianluigi Gabetti Mrs. WolfgangSchoenborn*
Miss Lillian Gish** Mrs. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Paul Gottlieb Mrs. Bertram Smith
Agnes Gund Jerry I. Speyer
Mrs. MelvilleWakemanHall Mrs.Alfred R. Stern
GeorgeHeard Hamilton* Mrs. Donald B. Straus
Barbara Jakobson Walter N. Thayer
Sidney Janis** R. L. B. Ibbin
Philip Johnson Edward M. M. Warburg*
Ronald S. Lauder Mrs. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
John L. Loeb* MonroeWheeler* PHOTOGRAPH
CREDITS
Ranald H. Macdonald* Richard S. Zeisler
DorothyC. Miller** CourtesyAlbright-Knox Art Gallery,23,65;JorgP Anders,105;Artech,
Inc.,117;LeeBrian,20top;GeoffreyClements,66;Colten,29;George
Cserna,95, 107,123,137,139,145,169;Ali Elai,121;courtesyAndre
*TrusteeEmeritus EmmerichGallery,66; M. Lee Fatheree,89, 125,157,165;courtesy
**Honorary Trustee Fort WorthArt Museum,11bottom,59 top; courtesyMr.and Mrs.
GrahamGund,97; Greenberg,Wrazen,& May,48; DavidHealdand
Ex Officio MylesAronowitz, 111;GregHeins,17;KateKeller,27 top, 64,91,103,
Edward I. Koch,Mayor of the City of New York 133,135,147,153,155,173,175;BarryKinsler,93;courtesyM.Knoedler
& Co.,87;A. Mewborn,101;Eric Mitchell,129;ThomasMoore,163;
Harrison J. Goldin,Comptroller of the City of New York courtesyNationalGalleryofArt,13,49bottom,143;StevenOliver,159;
DavidPenney,115;RolfPeterson,31;Earl Ripling,85; RuncoPhoto
Studios,65;LeeStalsworth,127,131,Struwingreklamefoto, 113;Soichi
Sunami,10 top, 14 top, 22, 26, 28, 32; John Tennant,167;courtesy
UlsterMuseum,99;courtesyUniversityof Nebraska,149;ThomasP
Vinetz,141;MalcolmVaron,151,161,171.
 -"-y

lio the artist's preoccupation with combining drawing and color

loo
ih- and with creating an exhilaratingly open and unimpeded pic
=CVI
|CD
IO
torial space.
:o In this first full-length critical study of Louis, Elderfield
=o
loo places his work in the context of the art of the 1950s,of modern
painting as a whole and the broad pictorial traditions to which
this artist belongs,with a closelyreasoned aesthetic analysisof
the particular elements which lend to these highly abstract
works their force, their integrity, and their humanity. "The
transcendental was once expressedthrough particular images,"
writes Elderfield,"Louis'sVeils,Unfurleds,and Stripes allude to
these elements: to water, to air, and to fire, and to the light that
makes them visible to us."

JOHNELDERFIELD is Director of the Department of Drawings

at The Museumof Modern Art, New York,and Curator in its
Department of Painting and Sculpture. His other books include
Kurt Schwitters, TheModem Drawing: OneHundred Workson
Paper from The Museum of Modem Art, The Drawings of
Henri Matisse, Matisse in the Collection of The Museum of
Modem Art, and The "WildBeasts": Fauvism and Its Affini
ties. He organized the exhibition of Morris Louis'spaintings at
The Museum of Modern Art which this book is published to
accompany.

THE MUSEUMOF MODERNART

11West 53 Street
New York,New York10019

Distributed by New YorkGraphic Society Books

Little, Brown and Company, Boston

Printed in Italy

cover:
Morris Louis.Beth Chaf
1959.
1/2". Acrylic resin on canvas, 11'7"x8'6
Collection Marcella Louis Brenner

"T
-------------
ISBN D-fl7D7D- Mlfl- *4
SbblEfl